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

[Dragonbums]

Snip

Why? Because I would like to play some Nintendo games without having to buy a different console. But if they don't want my money, whatever...

But everyone is perfectly fine having to buy an Xbox 360 to get a Halo game right?

I'm sorry. I can't hear you over the sound of all the people playing Halo and Halo 2 on the PC.

But really, probably not. Notice, however, that I did say "I would like to play some Nintendo games without having to buy a different console". As in me, personally. The person who has a 360 and would like to play Nintendo games. Me, not everyone. To try to project my own views as the one correct view, or as the view of "everyone" is incredibly egotistical, even for me.

The people who are lusting over Nintendo going third party for their own benefit are the ones that are egotistical. Especially around this generation. Nintendo is about the only one of the big three that focus more on games than anything else. They are the only ones that don't revel in the nightmare that is online passes, over priced DLC, ridiculous patches for games that weren't properly fixed because the KNOW they can just fix it later with patches, and whining about used games.
Yet despite everyones' perpetual whining about those issues, they want to see the one hardware and videogame company that doesn't do these things fall into third party status because they want to play Mario without "degrading" themselves by owning a "kiddie console"

People buy Nintendo hardware for Nintendo products, and those people do so in the droves of tens of millions. And Nintendo knows they are guaranteed that for every 10 consoles sold 8 of them will have a Mario game to go with it. Not as a bundle, but as a separate purchase. Their games on average rival or surpass COD and Elder Scrolls levels of sales.

 

[Dragonbums]

Snip

Why? Because I would like to play some Nintendo games without having to buy a different console. But if they don't want my money, whatever...

But everyone is perfectly fine having to buy an Xbox 360 to get a Halo game right?

360 plays dvds, a wii did not.

360 controller was/is one of the best controllers, while the wiimote was "new", it was shite for many things and plenty of people did not prefer it in the slightest

(hell just watch the wii's e3 debut's, faulty as shit most the time)

as many people have mentioned, for multiplatform games, why would you get it on the system where you don't enjoy the controls or doesn't have it at all? (ergo, them buying the wii or wiiU for one game, e.g. zelda)

Wii didn't have a DVD player, who gave a shit? Certainly not the tens of millions of people who bought the wii in the first place.
Why? Oh, I don't know, maybe it's because they ALREADY HAVE A DVD/BLURAY PLAYER sitting in front of their living room.
The wii remote didn't work for a lot of things? Cool. I guess you didn't know that Gamecube, classic, and pro controllers were an option for many games. If a game developer chose to utilize the motion sensors when it didn't help their games, blame them not Nintendo.
Apparently the Wii remote is too complicated for everyone who isn't old, a child, or a non gamer.

 

[Dragonbums]

But everyone is perfectly fine having to buy an Xbox 360 to get a Halo game right?

So I guess the real question is:
"Why doesn't the company whose console I have no intention of buying anyway go third party so I don't have to buy their console?"

The answer being that they can ALL get away with it. I could ask this same question of Sony and MS, honestly.

But it's entitlement to say "I like Nintendo games, but I don't want to buy their hardware, so I want Nintendo to fail in the hardware department so they have no choice but to make games on the console I prefer"

That's selfish. And quite frankly, those people aren't important to Nintendo anyway. They have far than enough fans who buy their hardware for their games, and Iwata has said so many times before that if Nintendo fails then the games go with it.

Oddly enough, these same people said Nintendo should keep their 3DS handheld market, and at the same time say they aren't going to buy it because they don't want to get it just for Mario.

 

[Foolery]

Ah, yes. The tyranny of Nintendo. I buy a game. Put it in the system. It works. I enjoy it. With no online connection. No online pass. The horror!

 

[Dragonbums]

Besides, so what? Would Nintendo suddenly become abusive and bad in your eyes just for being a software developer? I doubt it. Then what difference does it make to argue they're not mean and oppressive? Do you think simply being a software developer/publisher will mean they use always-on DRM and such? Why would that suddenly be a thing?

Profit margins would be much, much smaller for Nintendo going software only. They would have less money to play with. Meaning they would have to start making efforts to guarantee a return on everything they put out. Whether or not that means they'd go full-on for DRM, going software only would require Nintendo to start playing hardball with everyone else.

Right now, they're not competing with the likes of Ubisoft or Activision, they're trying to work with them. Make them software only, and all of a sudden they're in competition. And that's going to bring out the knives. They're going to need to maximise revenue and compete with other publishers. Right now, publishers can release games on platforms knowing they don't have to compete with the likes of Mario Kart or Smash Bros. Put those games on non-Nintendo platforms, and you've essentially let the shark loose amongst the fishes. Nintendo is going to push those games hard in order to maximise income, and they're going to bring the claws out for the competition.

Remember that scene from Watchmen? "None of you seem understand. I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me!" It'll be like when Modern Warfare 2 came out, and every single publisher pushed their games away from the November release date because they didn't want to compete with that juggernaut. Except Nintendo doesn't have one single juggernaut like COD. They've got loads. Just think about how many different games Nintendo would be able out on a yearly basis: Mario, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, (non)Wii Sports, Animal Crossing, F-Zero, Star Fox, Fire Emblem, Kirby, Pikmin, Donkey Kong, Professor Layton, Wars, the Xeno series (post Xenoblade), Kid Icarus... they'd be able to put out a top-tier must-have game every single month of the year. And without hardware and royalties supporting them, they'dlikely do that in order to maximise revenue. No other company can compete with that. EA, Activision, Ubisoft, none of them would be able to compete. There's a reason the top selling Wii games were all Nintendo, despite those publishers all putting games on the system.

Nintendo IP being exclusive on Nintendo consoles gives third-parties room to compete on other platforms. Take that away, and you'll end up seeing smaller games get crushed from the competition.[/quote]

This, thank you.

Nintendo is already a juggernaut on it's own consoles. A secret reason that third party developers don't say is that they just can't compete with them on their own systems. Assassins creed couldn't compete with a sub-par (by Nintendo's standards) Mario game.

I would however take Pokemon off that list of juggernauts because, unless they keep their handheld division- Tajiri and Sugimori said that they will NEVER make a core series of Pokemon on the console. That and they are also second party. By all rights they are only exclusive to Nintendo due to Iwata, Tajiri, and Sugimori were childhood friends and have a really deep bond with each other.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

snip.

Ah. PC. And nope I can see the reason why Nintendo won't go their. Miyamoto is very prideful when it comes to the quality of his product. Just look up Shigeru Miyamoto quality and see interviews of his talking pridefully about quality. If he was to put Nintendo games on PC there would be problems of some kind for a fact. It would be something he could not easily control and would have to make a PC team to fix the problem. The man I would say is like a Chef of his own restaurant. He can control the product in his own restaurant and make sure it is quality stuff. Sure you may want to see his products sold in stores, but he wants to be proud of what's on the plate and he can control it's quality. You cannot, in any form, say that a game on PC will run perfectly on all PC's. You cannot do that, there will be problems. Mr. Miyamoto is a man that does not want to have any problems with his products if he can prevent it. Thus a console and the exclusives to it. If you see the games on PC, expect it to be buggy for someone for a fact.

that is actually a very good way of putting it, and i would agree with it whole heartily how nintendo is generally run.

still, that doesn't mean i like it as a consumer in the slightest, as mentioned the mmo/FTP pokemons i thought were vastly superior in many ways

(plus we'd get add ons mods for old games, like anyone who played the first pokemon snap has been DYING for a sequel. mods would easily solve that.)

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Snip

Why? Because I would like to play some Nintendo games without having to buy a different console. But if they don't want my money, whatever...

But everyone is perfectly fine having to buy an Xbox 360 to get a Halo game right?

360 plays dvds, a wii did not.

360 controller was/is one of the best controllers, while the wiimote was "new", it was shite for many things and plenty of people did not prefer it in the slightest

(hell just watch the wii's e3 debut's, faulty as shit most the time)

as many people have mentioned, for multiplatform games, why would you get it on the system where you don't enjoy the controls or doesn't have it at all? (ergo, them buying the wii or wiiU for one game, e.g. zelda)

Wii didn't have a DVD player, who gave a shit? Certainly not the tens of millions of people who bought the wii in the first place.
Why? Oh, I don't know, maybe it's because they ALREADY HAVE A DVD/BLURAY PLAYER sitting in front of their living room.
The wii remote didn't work for a lot of things? Cool. I guess you didn't know that Gamecube, classic, and pro controllers were an option for many games. If a game developer chose to utilize the motion sensors when it didn't help their games, blame them not Nintendo.
Apparently the Wii remote is too complicated for everyone who isn't old, a child, or a non gamer.

right, that's why the xbox and ps2 could both play dvd's in the previous generation...
*see's the 3 ps2's around the house doubled as dvd players* my mistake, having something as simple and expected as dvd playback is apparently too much.

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

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



those are just rough numbers, but i counted roughly 69 games out of the 1222 games that are available currently, i mean do the math..that really isn't that much at all, especially not for alot of the main first party titles (super smash brawl and mario kart i think were the only ones?)

yes dev's weren't forced to use wiimote technology, i wasn't trying to argue they were, just for multi platform games, why would anyone play it on the wii? i don't know of a single person who bought something on the wii that wasn't available elsewhere.

too complicated? i'm not even going to touch that silly argument, i mean just look at the thing, it screams simplified and unintuitive for games. hell you will probably get laughed at if you use anything but a gamecube/classic controller for SSMB, not to mention the immense beating you will take.

 

[suntt123]

But it's entitlement to say "I like Nintendo games, but I don't want to buy their hardware, so I want Nintendo to fail in the hardware department so they have no choice but to make games on the console I prefer"

That's selfish. And quite frankly, those people aren't important to Nintendo anyway. They have far than enough fans who buy their hardware for their games, and Iwata has said so many times before that if Nintendo fails then the games go with it.

Oddly enough, these same people said Nintendo should keep their 3DS handheld market, and at the same time say they aren't going to buy it because they don't want to get it just for Mario.

Oh, I agree. It's just that people are jerks and if there is any console whose games they either can't be bothered to look for or just generally don't enjoy they automatically want to see it go down the tubes just for the handful of games they may actually want.

I have a lot of games for the Wii. More than a dozen and counting. Since the Wii U's library is still pretty small I'll be passing the time with wii games I never got around to buying/finishing until the library DOES get bigger. But before that I want to replay Xenoblade and Last Story to 100% completion (I've finished them and started a new game+). I've still got Sonic Colors, Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn, Muramasa the Demon Blade and Pandora's tower to buy if I ever need more games. I find it bizarre that the only REAL complaint anyone ever had with the wii were that they didn't want to buy it for "one game". That and motion controls, though they don't really bother me and I prefer them for shooting controls and sword play.

If they're not into those games fine. But it's stupid to wish for a console to die just because they personally don't know of or don't like the games available for it.

 

[Dragonbums]

Snip

Why? Because I would like to play some Nintendo games without having to buy a different console. But if they don't want my money, whatever...

But everyone is perfectly fine having to buy an Xbox 360 to get a Halo game right?

360 plays dvds, a wii did not.

360 controller was/is one of the best controllers, while the wiimote was "new", it was shite for many things and plenty of people did not prefer it in the slightest

(hell just watch the wii's e3 debut's, faulty as shit most the time)

as many people have mentioned, for multiplatform games, why would you get it on the system where you don't enjoy the controls or doesn't have it at all? (ergo, them buying the wii or wiiU for one game, e.g. zelda)

Wii didn't have a DVD player, who gave a shit? Certainly not the tens of millions of people who bought the wii in the first place.
Why? Oh, I don't know, maybe it's because they ALREADY HAVE A DVD/BLURAY PLAYER sitting in front of their living room.
The wii remote didn't work for a lot of things? Cool. I guess you didn't know that Gamecube, classic, and pro controllers were an option for many games. If a game developer chose to utilize the motion sensors when it didn't help their games, blame them not Nintendo.
Apparently the Wii remote is too complicated for everyone who isn't old, a child, or a non gamer.

right, that's why the xbox and ps2 could both play dvd's in the previous generation...
*see's the 3 ps2's around the house doubled as dvd players* my mistake, having something as simple and expected as dvd playback is apparently too much.

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

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



those are just rough numbers, but i counted roughly 69 games out of the 1222 games that are available currently, i mean do the math..that really isn't that much at all, especially not for alot of the main first party titles (super smash brawl and mario kart i think were the only ones?)

yes dev's weren't forced to use wiimote technology, i wasn't trying to argue they were, just for multi platform games, why would anyone play it on the wii? i don't know of a single person who bought something on the wii that wasn't available elsewhere.

too complicated? i'm not even going to touch that silly argument, i mean just look at the thing, it screams simplified and unintuitive for games. hell you will probably get laughed at if you use anything but a gamecube/classic controller for SSMB, not to mention the immense beating you will take.

Laughed at for using a wii remote for SSBB?
Give me a break. I've played dorm hall tournaments with many people, and I was the minority when it came to using a Gamecube controller.
Nobody gave two shits what controller you used. Because at the end of the day 1) We were having fun 2) The guy with the Wiimote controller was the one whooping everyone's asses. and 3) Even the "bros" of Nintendo aren't as crass and elitest as the "bros" in Sony and Microsoft to make fun of something as stupid and pathetic as some person's choice of controller.

The Wii could have a DVD if it wanted to. Nintendo never stated that they couldn't do that. Nintendo just decided that it wasn't necessary, and it wasn't important. I don't think anyone who owns the Wii complained that it didn't have a DVD/ BLU ray device because once again everyone at this point already has a DVD/Blu-Ray player. All of my friends who owned the Wii not once complained about the fact that it doesn't have a DVD player. Because once again, people buy game consoles to play blasted games. Not watch movies. Especially when you already have a device that does it much better because that's it's main feature, and not second priority.

Yet you make this out to be a big deal. Is it really a wonder that Microsoft to their console in the direction everyone is complaining about?

 

[Something Amyss]

Let me get this straight. You are comparing past crimes of Nintendo, that doesn't effect

Affect.

today, and your

You're.

But let's address the premise now.

still angry for that? Okay people can hold a grudge for sure and I understand.

The premise here is that I am "angry" and "holding a grudge" because I have enough knowledge about the company in question to be able to answer your questions truthfully.

You asked questions to which you yourself apparently did not know the answers, and I provided them. No need to make it into anything more. There's no need for hysteria because people can form cogent answers to your questions.

I am, however, amazed that anyone could pretend that any of this didn't happen and take the stance that Nintendo has "never" treated its customers bad.

 

[Something Amyss]

Bollocks. Do consoles require an always-online internet connection

Yes, I forgot that always-online was the only form of DRM. How silly of me!

I think that's enough apologetics for one day.

 

[Something Amyss]

[

Mario, Zelda, and Metroid aren't exclusives in the same way Halo is

Hey man, you're the one who set the equivalence, not me.

But everyone is perfectly fine having to buy an Xbox 360 to get a Halo game right?

Remember that? I merely addressed your issue. Don't try and tell me how the point you brought up is somehow different now that someone's addressed it because ponies. That pony won't fly, man. That pony won't flyyyyyyyy.

Also:

But it's entitlement to say "I like Nintendo games, but I don't want to buy their hardware, so I want Nintendo to fail in the hardware department so they have no choice but to make games on the console I prefer"

No, entitlement would be "I'm owed these games!" This is not entitlement.

One can certainly argue selfishness, but please don't misuse the word entitlement. It gets abused by gamers too much already.

 

[TrevHead]

I see a similar argument about CAVE shmups all the time "If only CAVE ported their STGs to PS3 they wouldn't be in this mess!" yet in the same breath proclaim that they would never pay more than $10 for a shmup in the first place.

This gen most mainstream gamers are spoilt as they have gotten used to buying multiplats for dirt cheap that they don't see the value in most games that don't have uber shiny graphics, Anything with a hint of retro is automatically deemed to have no value of more than $10 because that's the price indies charge, meanwhile F2P is devaluing many other $60 genres.

Even though the WiiU is a tad underpowered they are still wise for separating themselves from that market as much as possible and continuing to sell to ppl who value their games at a premium IE those willing to put their money where their mouth is and buy the WiiU (the console still needs more exclusives to make it worth buying though)

And I agree Ninty would only go the way of SEGA if they dropped hardware.

 

[Vivi22]

The reason this bugs me is that some gamers actually believe that if Nintendo was forced to go multi-platform that somehow the Nintendo IP's would get "better" graphics and would make a better game. To me this is just a fallacy. Have we learned nothing about how twisted IP's become in the hands of AAA developers and console makers like EA, Activision, Sony, or Microsoft? Do we forget so easily about Sonic 06's history? Do we forget of what has happened with Overstrike? The assumption that Nintendo's game quality would actually improve is just false in so many levels.

I'm not sure why you'd assume that stuff would happen to Nintendo, and your examples you provide are pretty poor. First, if Nintendo did go third party, why would they be at the mercy of companies like EA, Activision, Sony or Microsoft? Sega weren't when they made Sonic 2006. That was all on them, and if we're going to be honest here, Sega had been making shitty Sonic games since the Dreamcast went under at that point. Why anyone was surprised when Sonic 2006 sucked is beyond me.

As for Overstrike, still not overly relevant. Insomniac have always needed a publisher because they are just a game developer. That things went to shit after they partnered with EA is beside the point. There's no reason to assume Nintendo couldn't continue in their dual role as developer and publisher if they went third party. Moreover, why did you lump Sony in with EA when they've not very surprisingly given Insomniac and other companies a great deal of slack to make whatever they want over the years. In fact, of the four companies you named, they've probably been responsible for the most new AAA franchises in the last two console generations.

 

[Negatempest]

This is very simple. I'm not buying an entire console to play 1 game. Or even 2. I've missed out on every Zelda game since Windwaker because I was not buying a Wii just for Twilight Princess and Skyward sword. Just not doing it. I play dozens of games on my PS3 and I played dozens on my Xbox. Not buying a whole console for 2. I say again, not buying an entire console for 2 games. Not happening.

Then buy it to play Mario Galaxy, Galaxy 2, Metroid Prime 3, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Xenoblade, The Last Story, Pandora Tower, Sonic Colours, Donkey Kong Country Returns, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword.

Oh, would you look at that? That's a dozen quality titles right there.

"Quality titles" and "Titles I want to play" are not the same thing. Oh, would you look at that? I just destroyed your entire argument with a simple equation. Quality titles ≠ titles I want to play.

I don't like Mario, I don't like Metroid, I don't like Kirby, I don't like Sonic, I don't like Donkey Kong, I don't like Fire Emblem, and I don't know enough about Xenoblade and The Last Story for those 2 plus 2 Zelda games to justify the cost.

So um... maybe get off your high horse and realize that going multiplatform in no way detracts from your enjoyment of a title on Nintendo's hardware. I don't suffer one bit because a game is on the xbox if I have the same game on PS3. Also bite me.

I can understand your view. Your list has lots of shooters in their right? I'm just assuming and there is nothing wrong with that. It's what you want. But Nintendo going Multi-platform in no way will get you to buy anything else but a game or two from them. Thus your point wasn't really invalid as I would say you just don't wanna play the games that Nintendo offers. So Nintendo staying console exclusive does not really effect you.

My list has exactly one shooter. That's fairly clever to try and "insult" me by suggesting I play lots of shooters but I only own Borderlands 2 as far as shooters go. I prefer games where you actively avoid killing folks. Dishonored, Portal, Quantum Conundrum, Hitman (you only want to kill one person), Deus Ex, Splinter Cell (back before it was Die Hard) some sports titles, and some others.

This whole thing is falling down around your ears. Wanna give it up yet?

Going multiplatform means that I can buy as few or as many Nintendo games as I want without impacting you in any way. There are those who would in fact buy many more than the 2 I want.

So in conclusion, zero downside for you, plenty of upside for me and everyone else. Where is the problem? You're not the petty type are you? The "it doesn't matter if win, as long as everyone else loses" type?

Actually half your games there make use of "realistic looking graphics". So no, I was assuming the game genre. But I was right on how you want your games too look. Personally "realistic" graphics is just not doing it for me anymore. Also if you calm down a little and re-read my reply. You would notice I was not insulting you at all, but saying your choice in games is respectable. So is enjoying Nintendo games for what they are as well.

I never mentioned anything about graphics. I still play old PS2 games because I care about gameplay and story. I still play Final Fantasy 7 and 8 because they're better than 13 and 13-2. I still play Thief 2 because graphics mean nothing to me at all. I play pokemon blue because solid gameplay is the most important measure of a game to me. Borderlands, the only shooter I play, looks cartoony as balls and I believe Windwaker to be one of the most beautiful looking games ever released. The Walking Dead is another game I own and enjoy that doesn't have anything to do with "realistic looking graphics".

I never asked for Zelda to use realistic graphics. You've seen every word I've typed on this matter, tell me where I said anything about Zelda not looking good enough or where I said Nintendo's hardware was inferior? I said they don't offer Zelda on the consoles I own so I can't play it. End of story. Why don't I own it? Not because it is or isn't inferior, but because it only has 2 games I want.

I want Zelda on PS3 and I want it looking as charming and innocent as it does on Nintendo's hardware, or as gritty as Twilight Princess was. Whatever, just give it to me. I don't care about graphics.

Care to try again then?

So your argument is for Nintendo to go multiplatform so that you can play it with your ps3. The reason for that has nothing to do with graphics, but the dream that Sony will not in any way influence the direction the game would go. My argument in the OP is that such a thing is a pipe dream. Nintendo would no longer create a product under Nintendo quality, but one that would make Sony happy. I just don't see any improvement because every great Mascot character Sony did have is long forgotten or abandoned. You know, Crash, Spyro, Jak and Dexter, these were freakin great IP's that do not see the light that they used too.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Laughed at for using a wii remote for SSBB?
Give me a break. I've played dorm hall tournaments with many people, and I was the minority when it came to using a Gamecube controller.
Nobody gave two shits what controller you used. Because at the end of the day 1) We were having fun 2) The guy with the Wiimote controller was the one whooping everyone's asses. and 3) Even the "bros" of Nintendo aren't as crass and elitest as the "bros" in Sony and Microsoft to make fun of something as stupid and pathetic as some person's choice of controller.

i've played at conventions and tournaments myself, and not a single person used the wiimote.

if your playing SSMBB with a wiimote because that is all you have, then yes, obviously thats okay, but anyone remotely in it for competition, uses a GC or classic, I'd love to see the person you claim using the wiimote, because I've never seen someone use it and hold their own slightly. (unless they are metaknight/OP spamming, different story)

look, i'm not a sony or microsoft fanboy in the slightest, i couldn't give a shit about their systems, so bringing up "bros" of sony and microsoft does nothing, unless you just like bringing it up for shits and giggles.

The Wii could have a DVD if it wanted to. Nintendo never stated that they couldn't do that. Nintendo just decided that it wasn't necessary, and it wasn't important. I don't think anyone who owns the Wii complained that it didn't have a DVD/ BLU ray device because once again everyone at this point already has a DVD/Blu-Ray player. All of my friends who owned the Wii not once complained about the fact that it doesn't have a DVD player. Because once again, people buy game consoles to play blasted games. Not watch movies. Especially when you already have a device that does it much better because that's it's main feature, and not second priority.

Yet you make this out to be a big deal. Is it really a wonder that Microsoft to their console in the direction everyone is complaining about?

and i know plenty of people that have complained about it not having a dvd player playback. see that? anecdotal evidence that cancels each other out for little to nothing gained. Here, just check this out:

see how many results pop up? [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=why+doesn%27t+the+wii+play+dvd%27s]

also, that is a tired defense, it's not like people don't use youtube/netflix/hulu/facebook/etc.. on their consoles...

oh wait.

 

[Negatempest]

Let me get this straight. You are comparing past crimes of Nintendo, that doesn't effect

Affect.

today, and your

You're.

But let's address the premise now.

still angry for that? Okay people can hold a grudge for sure and I understand.

The premise here is that I am "angry" and "holding a grudge" because I have enough knowledge about the company in question to be able to answer your questions truthfully.

You asked questions to which you yourself apparently did not know the answers, and I provided them. No need to make it into anything more. There's no need for hysteria because people can form cogent answers to your questions.

I am, however, amazed that anyone could pretend that any of this didn't happen and take the stance that Nintendo has "never" treated its customers bad.

Ah, a smartass. Instead of answering the question or response directly. He analyzes the sentence only to justify his smartass ways. I'm a smartass too most of the time, so I know.

What is being said, I repeat, Nintendo did mess up quite a few times. For sure. But they didn't make their customers feel like criminals during those mess ups. They didn't put in Online Passes or hold games for ransom like other companies have. (Megaman Legends -_-) Their mess ups were in the form of putting stupidly strict rules mostly on the developers/publishers that soon enough turned them away. But when developers or most importantly certain publishers get control, that is when you get the Xbox One.

Edit: Meant publishers -_-

 

[Negatempest]

The reason this bugs me is that some gamers actually believe that if Nintendo was forced to go multi-platform that somehow the Nintendo IP's would get "better" graphics and would make a better game. To me this is just a fallacy. Have we learned nothing about how twisted IP's become in the hands of AAA developers and console makers like EA, Activision, Sony, or Microsoft? Do we forget so easily about Sonic 06's history? Do we forget of what has happened with Overstrike? The assumption that Nintendo's game quality would actually improve is just false in so many levels.

I'm not sure why you'd assume that stuff would happen to Nintendo, and your examples you provide are pretty poor. First, if Nintendo did go third party, why would they be at the mercy of companies like EA, Activision, Sony or Microsoft? Sega weren't when they made Sonic 2006. That was all on them, and if we're going to be honest here, Sega had been making shitty Sonic games since the Dreamcast went under at that point. Why anyone was surprised when Sonic 2006 sucked is beyond me.

As for Overstrike, still not overly relevant. Insomniac have always needed a publisher because they are just a game developer. That things went to shit after they partnered with EA is beside the point. There's no reason to assume Nintendo couldn't continue in their dual role as developer and publisher if they went third party. Moreover, why did you lump Sony in with EA when they've not very surprisingly given Insomniac and other companies a great deal of slack to make whatever they want over the years. In fact, of the four companies you named, they've probably been responsible for the most new AAA franchises in the last two console generations.

Why do I assume? Well it has nothing to do with how bad Microsoft has been treating their customers. I don't want Nintendo games on that console. Sony "would" of been a good choice, but than they have online passes. So I'll pass on their console as well. When I played the Wii-U, I noticed the new games didn't have an online pass. On the contrary they came with a registration slip, not needed for the game, to get points for possible free stuff later on. There were no sports ads on the front page, or even adds for other games. Just a simple menu to go where you wanna go. Play games directly, Youtube, etc. If you went to the market, than you would be hit with sales. The main menu was simple and straight to the point. To play a game. So yeah, I don't want to see Nintendo lose their console.

 

[Dragonbums]

[

Mario, Zelda, and Metroid aren't exclusives in the same way Halo is

Hey man, you're the one who set the equivalence, not me.

But everyone is perfectly fine having to buy an Xbox 360 to get a Halo game right?

Remember that? I merely addressed your issue. Don't try and tell me how the point you brought up is somehow different now that someone's addressed it because ponies. That pony won't fly, man. That pony won't flyyyyyyyy.

Also:

But it's entitlement to say "I like Nintendo games, but I don't want to buy their hardware, so I want Nintendo to fail in the hardware department so they have no choice but to make games on the console I prefer"

No, entitlement would be "I'm owed these games!" This is not entitlement.

One can certainly argue selfishness, but please don't misuse the word entitlement. It gets abused by gamers too much already.

It's a combination of entitlement and selfishness. A scary amount of people on this thread universally agree that Nintendo should crap up in the hardware department so bad that they have to go third party to save themselves from bankruptcy and be forced to make 3rd party games so they can play Mario, Zelda, or whatever combination of desired Nintendo franchises on another console.

Like how dare they make good games in house and make it exclusive on their own console? We should have that kind of fun too. However we don't want to touch a Nintendo product for it. It's for babies they say. I don't want to spend $300.00 on a console for one game. (Yet the moment a great exclusive comes out for the Xbox and PS3 nobody had a problem purchasing a system that costs more than $300.00) Their hardware is inferior.( I want to know how long this is going to last now that the difference in graphical power is starting to become much smaller.)