I was being naive, it seems. And Elysia being he's usual self. Why do I still have hope? ugh!Originally Posted by whiteflags
I was being naive, it seems. And Elysia being he's usual self. Why do I still have hope? ugh!
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I have no idea what you're complaining about. I really don't care for any exclusives, Nintendo included. For consumers, it's mostly just a big list of negatives.
I thought you were talking out of your rear. It sure sounded like you were singling Nintendo out for a incredibly common business practice.
I dispute even this. The whole point of exclusivity at all - even for a limited time - is to have games for your console on launch day, and some people would say that's a positive because you actually get to play something on it. It adds value to your purchase.
Last edited by whiteflags; 10-24-2016 at 08:07 AM.
I'm not singling out Nintendo for that practice. But the fact remains that - because there tend to be so few 3rd party titles on the Nintendo platforms, their exclusivity tends to do more harm to the consumer than good because a lot of people usually invest in the console ONLY for the Nintendo games. For some, that's just not worth the investment.
Sony and Microsoft do it too, and I don't them doing it either, so it's not just limited to Nintendo.
It adds no value unless you own said system. If you purchase a PS4 and never an Xbone, you will lose out on their exclusives, hence missing out on value. The exclusives makes it so, for the consumer, that they have to get multiple systems to play all games. That's bad if the consumer gets less say. Same thing with exclusive movies - you have to subscribe to multiple services to get all movies. From a business perspective it makes sense in order to get games onto the platform, I won't dispute that. But nevertheless, it makes more sense in my book, that if Ninty put their games on other platforms, I could get two-three of their games without having to invest in their hardware. And that is what my complaint is about, because there's usually not enough 3rd party titles on Ninty's platforms to make it worth the investment.I dispute even this. The whole point of exclusivity at all - even for a limited time - is to have games for your console on launch day, and some people would say that's a positive because you actually get to play something on it. It adds value to your purchase.
Exclusivity is a strange and dangerous idom that is thrown around by the video game industry for
years and will be. White Flags and Elysia you both make valid points.
Game companies very rarely hire a AAA development studio to aid with the development of console games.
However - in saying that I can contradict myself there because Nintendo DID do this exact thing when the
WII U was launched. They conscripted UBI Soft to aid in the development of Zombi U (which to be fair was not
half bad).
The problem was - because the console did not reach the heights that the big N were expecting, UbI Soft
outright refused to develop a sequel in spite of the actual game getting praised for the dark and mature
content that so many of Nintendo's games have lacked. Amazingly, when UBI cut ties with Nintendo they
actually developed a fully working port of Zombi U (re-titled Zombi) for the Playstation 4.
Also, some game companies such as Microsoft *cough* are greedy swines. When Rise of the Tomb Raider was
announced, M$ took on themselves to 100% buy all the rights to the franchise. Why? To boost sales of a then
lagging Xbox One. Square Enix just more or less went along with it and even in their half-arsed press release
around the time they totally kissed M$'s ar$e about the deal. It royally annoyed loads of PS fans who had grown
up with the license since 1996. Eventually, Square managed to sort of a "timed exclusive" mark on the game, which
meant PS4 and PC would get their ports.
Exclusivity to a single console does have it's good things. Problem is, will the game developer(s) want to just
create games for that single platform or want to branch out, to increase sales.
Double Helix STL
Coming in late, but my 2 cents:
I'll agree that going with ARM vs x86 is going to make ports harder, but I wouldn't say that the horsepower will be lacking. It's going to be a custom NVIDIA Tegra, which is based on their Maxwell GPU architecture, same architecture as some of the high-end GTX cards. I have an NVIDIA Shield TV which is the Tegra X1; 256 CUDA cores clocked at somewhere around 1 GHz, essentially a desktop graphics card. It can play some pretty demanding games as I understand it, though the most I've used it for is Netflix/Hulu/emulators.
Nintendo, since the Wii, has been targeted at the casual gamers, not the hardcore types. In going with ARM, going to make it easy to port mobile-type games (or they could anyway).
I'll probably buy one when RetroArch releases their port for it. Already works on the NVIDIA Shield. I'd like a good handheld emulator.
It may share the same architecture, but it's lacking in raw horse power. Sites speculate that the Switch can roughly keep up with the 360/PS3. That's pretty amazing to be sure, but Sony figures PS4 is about 10X faster than PS3, so there's a huge gap there.
Porting over mobile games to the Switch is only going to reinforce that's it's a cusual gaming system and that will hurt Nintendo even more. I can't see this system being "casual friendly." The only way Nintendo pulled it off with the Wii was because of the controller. A lot of buttons is just going to confuse casual gamers.
Also, don't expect to be able to run 3rd party software/emulators on it. Not going to happen officially. If it happens, it's due to some unofficial hack which will subsequently be patched.
I think you mean "not through app store" software, all the consoles have 3rd party software, like Netflix. To be fair, you can say this statement about the other consoles as well. No one is letting any "not through the app store" anything work officially. And to that I say: bastards, all of them.
Also, I don't know about the Wii U, but the original Wii's last firmware allowed for homebrew to work.
Well, they won't allow emulators through their official "app store" either. I agree they're bastards, though, especially Nintendo.
It's getting harder to break the firmware as newer games always require the newest firmware, so you can't just unplug the console stay in the stone age.
Finally watched Nintendo's Switch video on YouTube, actually looks pretty enticing. Thing is, that NVIDIA Shield I mentioned was $149, not going to pay much more than that ($200-$250) for the same exact hardware. Googled the anticipated price, (seeing $300-$400) probably won't buy one until it goes down in price years later.
Most analysts think it's going to end up in the $250-300 price range. More would be suicide.
When the Game Cube came out in 2002, I bought one for £135.00. That was pretty good as a launch price.
It came with two pads and Luigi's Mansion.
Looking at the price of the Switch makes me think of just how expensive consoles are to buy now. I know
PCs and Macs are expensive too but you get what you pay for and then some with such high powered machines.
Console's are really a stripped down PC - and your still playing almost as much.
Double Helix STL
