[quote name='eastx']You'll have to show some respect though, or I won't have anything else to say to you. [/quote]
I'll consider that.
I'm a Literature major so I've never had to take economics; please forgive me for not being able to state all that more concisely.
I'm a Lib Arts graduate with an emphasis in creative writing. So I don't know anything more about econ than you do.
However, I'll give you a hint.
All economics - no matter macro or micro, no matter what markets you are looking at - goes back to supply and demand, which are simple concepts. They can make up all these fancy words and scenarios to try and puff it up, but it can all be reduced to something simple that anyone with the slightest grasp of the "science" could explain with little difficulty. So the point is to not worry about that, because for how amazingly boring econ is, the only people who delude themselves into thinking it's a big flaming deal are the same ones who actually believe that shit is more complex than two sentences' worth of definition.
I never said the new sector has less potential than the traditional gaming sector either. I can't say why people might think that, except maybe they're influenced by the obvious fact that casual gamers purchase less games for their consoles than hardcore gamers do. Spectacular hardware sales only matter (to third parties, at least) if software sales match up in some profitable way.
You said "the momentum will slow down" which was talking about the rate, and then you switched to "the number of people who might buy it is a finite number." My entire point is that we have little to no historical evidence to make those assumptions or claims, and more time has to have passed before any real honest projections could be accessed. Again, before the Wii launched, lots of people said it was DOA. And then for the past year, every other week there was a "the Wii bubble will burst" editorial. So much for any of that.
Now you're changing it over to things about third party sales, which is a different beast indeed, and one I've addressed a lot. The basics are that third parties need to actually try to make good games instead of porting shovelware crap and being astonished when the games don't sell. But it's also that Nintendo's own software is their best asset
and detriment, since not many people are going to buy a crappy platformer for $50 when Mario can be had for the same price, which looks better, plays better, and has more long-lasting satisfaction. It's like chewing on a pebble versus a piece of gum.
That's a low blow, because I actually was aware of that. You'll notice I wrote a one-paragraph summary with the points that came to mind, whereas you obviously thought it out more and turned each era into its own paragraph. Of course you'd hit upon some points that I could not, given that I used much less space.
It's easy to say "I was aware of that" after I point out the omissions, which means I have no way of knowing whether or not you truly did.
As for "much less space," if you're really a Lit major, then surely you know about brevity and being able to short-hand. I do also, but I don't give a shit, as I'm obviously full of a lot of hot virtual wind, and am fully ready and willing to expel it slowly and
longly upon message boards.
Let's see... Sony Imagesoft was not a key third party
Stop.
You didn't specify third parties. You were asking about how third party relationships were working between now and the SNES. And I say - and everyone else who knows the history agrees - that the problems with Sony are what
directly led to so many problems with third parties and falling out with Nintendo. If none of that had happened, the Playstation would either have never materialized OR have become a Nintendo-owned device, and the third parties wouldn't really have had anywhere else to go (unless you count Sega, which I guess is true based on this hypothetical scenario we're painting here).
Hell, if the PS had never happened and everyone rode the N64 boat into the future like Nintendo thought and said they would, you could safely argue that gaming would have been held back. But since Nintendo was the king at the time, no one was willing to tell him he was naked.
those cart prices don't seem to have had a major negative impact on the SNES software library. In other words, the SNES was a huge success in most ways, everybody was on board, and that's why I don't look too critically on that time period.
Doesn't matter. Again, you were talking about third party relations. All I have to do at that point is prove how those relations actually
were, stable or not. And since Nintendo would fall from grace in a little over two years from that point, it's fully within the argument to assume that problems with the SNES and carts only added to the coming debacle that would be the N64.
You're asking me about X and I'm telling you a bunch of things that culminated into it. Some of those things are tangential in theory, but hardcore part of the problem. Again, Sony wasn't a third party, but you cannot tell me that they didn't factor into that issue. They brought out a system that lots of developers wanted to get in on, namely Square, and they showed up with little provocation. Here was a new boss
not the same as the old boss, and they were all ready for a change.
Everything else I pointed out still stands. I think you're telling me that the poor sales of third party software
and the decline of third party software over the Gamecube's life are the same as "strained third party relations," and really those are different things. Removing a project from the Gamecube because it wouldn't get good sales is a financial decision. Refusing to put games on the system
because of that, and because of Draconian iron-fisting that Nintendo is famous for is an entirely different beast.
No, I was not wrong. This one's mostly a matter of perspective though. You really consider Rogue Squadron and Eternal Darkness to be third-party titles?
Rogue Squadron definitely is, even though Factor 5's MusyX technology was inherent in Nintendo platforms (at least the GC and the GBA). They just liked working for Nintendo in the same way Sony has some companies that do that. But they weren't under contractual obligations as far as I know, and they split from Nintendo for the PS3 in a hurry. And then Lair came out, and now they want to work for other companies again.
Eternal Darkness wasn't third party because SK was a second party. But they were originally third party in the sense that they worked on the PS, and then began ED on the N64. That shifted to the Gamecube, during which Nintendo contracted them as second party. That is the
essence of treating third parties right, since they basically handed them money, asked them to make an exclusive game, offered to help them out with technical details, published it, and helped promote the game. It's the same thing they did with Rare back in the day.
ED as a game isn't third party. My point was that Nintendo's relations with third parties during the Gamecube era was a long an arduous attempt to regain trust and look less scary-behemoth to people.
I never looked at them that way. Still, Nintendo hiring a developer to make a game for them is not, not, not (see, I can stutter too) the same as providing a good atmosphere for third-party developers in general.
It is once the contract is signed and they are officially under Nintendo's wing, which is what lots of companies would like from
any of the big developers.
I know for a fact that several developers would have supported online features in GameCube games if Nintendo had allowed them to. Free Radical's
TimeSplitters 3 is just one example.
Nintendo didn't even support it themselves, nor did they give anyone reason to do so. If they'd have put up some servers or done anything that
remotely suggested that they themselves would have supported it, then third parties might have been able to get in on the action too.
Finally, while they may have had a fair # of publishers onboard initially, obviously most of them dropped off because Nintendo didn't successfully create a viable platform for third-parties.
Nope. As I said above, poor sales for third parties is not the same as failing to try and appeal to them, because it goes from a financial angle to a professionalism one. There is a massive difference. It's the same reason you return a book to the library on time versus keeping it two weeks late.
You're telling me that
this article and
this article are untrue?
It's Kotaku and 1up, which are both gaming blogs, which means they have little credibility, since all their stories are little more than a gigantic game of telephone. Do you want me to show you pictures of games already using them? Let's see...
Yes, I know some games do use Miis, but I'll believe the developers that say Nintendo curtailed their plans to use them. So not wrong! I rock.
I guess not. And you're delusional, which doesn't happen when you rock.
And rather than giving Nintendo all the credit for those Wii exclusives you mentioned, I would give more credit to publishers wanting to get in on the Wii bandwagon.
I pointed out Monster Hunter 3 because that was a title originally designed for the PS3, and then jumped ship. Capcom felt like they needed to apologize for it.
Sounds like Nintendo going in and trying very,
very hard to get the damn game on their side. Okami is another example, but only halfway (if not quarterway), since it's just a port with some redesigned controls.
If a title is developed with the Wii as the lead platform, it's obviously a lot more difficult to release to other platforms as well.
....So? That's true anywhere. A game designed for the 360 can't be released on the DS either.
I think I already covered this. That's in Japan, where the entire culture is shifting away from consoles. The only big selling games over there tend to be sequels (like Final Fantasy) and franchise titles (like Mario and Brawl).
If you're going to include that, then what about the poor sales of the 360 over there, software and all?
Besides,
No More Heroes is exceeding sales expectations in the US if you look at the pathetic release in Japan, as are some other titles. I concede that as a whole, third party titles aren't selling as well as they can or should be given the hardware base, but I'm willing to give that another year and see what happens.
But again, it doesn't help that third parties are being boorish about the system anyway. Capcom has released three games that are performing above expectations, and
still they say things like "Oh, well if Okami sells well, then
maybe we'll think about more games." Because RE4, RE:UC, and Z&W weren't enough?
Christ.
They know no one likes friend codes. They have the ability to change their implementation, but they don't. Sure, it's more NOJ's fault than NOA. I'll just be concise and call it arrogance.
1. You can't prove that beyond "firmware updates."
2. It's not arrogance. You just defined indifference. I imagine you are familiar with a dictionary.
That's funny, you don't seem to have restated your point any more explicitly.
Because I don't strike rocks looking for water when I already know it's a lost cause. But I'll summarize
again.
First off, Nintendo isn't changing Friend Codes. Doesn't matter how much sense we as gamers make about it. That doesn't mean you can't complain or suggest it (since it is, in all reality, a better way to handle it), but to act like it's going to be a simple fix is laughable, especially when none of us develop anything.
Second, my point about my full list has nothing to do with the 360. It really doesn't have anything to do with a unified code. I said this was a personal problem of mine, one that doesn't affect others. And I said also that because of that personal issue,
only I take issue with it. Again, some of my friends aren't in my system list, but they will be getting Brawl. That would keep me from playing with them. This won't be the case with Friend Codes. BUT THIS IS FOR ME AND MY SYSTEM ONLY. Which is why I don't project it onto others. So your comparisons don't work and arguing it doesn't work because I already upfront said it was an issue with myself only.
I don't really remember if there was anything else to address on this issue.
