Nintendo software only.

[Eacaraxe]

Oh god, not this again. Good work on the sniffing and debunking folks, now were I to accidentally derail this thread, totally hypothetically speaking, I'd have felt totally justified in it.

Of course it's Jim Sterling, so any salient points are padded with repetition and long winded diatribes against anyone that pops into his head.

I had a monster bowl of some decently spicy chili and a couple beers tonight for dinner. I'm sure I'll serve up a better take on video games than Mx. Sterling when I wake up for work tomorrow morning.

 

[Hawki]

The point I'm trying to make is that as a maker of consoles, Nintendo has an incentive of making their first party games as good as possible as leverage to convince people to purchase their consoles. They can afford to take a loss on the development of the game, as their main goal is to obtain a larger share of the console market.

If Nintendo only sold software, there would be no reason for them not to move toward the 'live service' model that other major publishers have adopted that treat their games less as something to deliver a fun and enjoyable experience to the consumer, but rather as something to deliver dlc, microtransactions, and other purchases. Yes you can say that microtransactions are optional, but you can be assured that a game that is designed around selling the player virtual products will never be as good or have the integrity of one that is designed without that object in mind, since you need to artificially create the reasons for the player to want to spend additional money in the first place.

You're kind of envisaging an all or nothing approach that doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. As if Nintendo can either rely on hardware, or rely on live services. Among other things, I can easily point to Super Smash Brothers. It's Nintendo-exclusive, and a live-service game. As far as I can tell, that hasn't impacted its quality. Or, if you want a F2P example, look at Pokemon Unite.

I agree that on principle, a game based around trying to get the consumer to spend as much as possible on virtual products won't be as good as a 'solid' game on average (whatever counts as solid), but it's easily possible to have such a 'solid' game with optional microtransactions. We had expansion packs and DLC well before microtransactions, these aren't bad things ipso facto.

In the video linked above, Jim Sterling approaches the topic from the perspective of Sony's console exclusives, which are in a similar position as Nintendo's first party games.

Difference being that there's reasons to get a PlayStation console aside from PlayStation exclusives. I can't say that about any Nintendo console since the Wii.

Ha!

Okay, I'll play. How would one objectively claim that something like Assassin's Creed is worse than Legend of Zelda, or something like Call of Duty is objectively better than Splatoon?

Concievably through Metacritic I guess, or maybe units sold, but aside from that...

OverWatch

may have cosmetics that didn't require money at the time, but that later changed when Blizz started charging or through loot boxes. So he did end up later having a point for OW or games that did it even worse.

Overwatch has never required real money for its cosmetics though. You can purchase lootboxes with real money if you want, but the item drop rates and stream of in-game currency mean that it's not really required.

 

[BrawlMan]

Okay, I'll play. How would one objectively claim that something like Assassin's Creed is worse than Legend of Zelda, or something like Call of Duty is objectively better than Splatoon?

Big difference: They have either some or more level of fun than COD or AC. Keep in mind, I am not that big in to either LoZ or Splatoon, but I know I would have more fun playing those than the annual slops that are COD and AC.

If this was back during the 5th, 6th, and most of the 7th generation of gaming, you would have had a point. But the way Activision and Ubisoft especially, constantly shitting boring, safe, mediocre, or broken at launch products, there is not much room for subjectivity as far as I am concerned when comes to them. From the 8th generation and now, they have nothing worth of interests. I don't care if some people want to play or enjoy them. That's their choice and I won't stop them. Only they can regret their decision, but I rather play something I know that is going to be fun, than the same dull experience over and over again.

 

[BrawlMan]

Overwatch has never required real money for its cosmetics though. You can purchase lootboxes with real money if you want, but the item drop rates and stream of in-game currency mean that it's not really required.

Alrighty then.

 

[Hawki]

Big difference: They have either some or more level of fun than COD or AC.

Which is still a subjective statement.

If this was back during the 5th, 6th, and most of the 7th generation of gaming, you would have had a point. But the way Activision and Ubisoft especially, constantly shitting boring, safe, mediocre, or broken at launch products, there is not much room for subjectivity as far as I am concerned when comes to them. From the 8th generation and now, they have nothing worth of interests. I don't care if some people want to play or enjoy them. That's their choice and I won't stop them. Only they can regret their decision, but I rather play something I know that is going to be fun, than the same dull experience over and over again.

Again, all subjective. It doesn't help us get any closer to the notion of one thing being objectively better than another.

Not that it matters, because I'm generally as uninterested in Activision and Ubisoft's output as you are by the looks of it, but, well, I've played 10 LoZ games, 3 CoD games, and 1 AC game. So I'm really not in a good position to say I've had to time to evaluate them evenly.

 

[BrawlMan]

Which is still a subjective statement.

Your point? The "HA!" was me just being a trollish dick to the statement directed at Ubisoft and Activision. Not really towards you. The AC games for me are objectively bad, because they do little to improve, and each entry only seems make the game less fun, more work, and all of the intrusive micotransactions.

Again, all subjective. It doesn't help us get any closer to the notion of one thing being objectively better than another.

Nice and all, but as I far as I'm concerned, they've done nothing worthwhile nor worth investing towards.

Not that it matters, because I'm generally as uninterested in Activision and Ubisoft's output as you are by the looks of it, but, well, I've played 10 LoZ games, 3 CoD games, and 1 AC game.

Glad we agree. For the record, I played:

• 5 COD games.
• 3 AC Games.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I felt like I've seen this exact thread before, so I did some digging:

Nintendo software only.

If the NX fails, could Nintendo go software only?

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Also, other identical threads I turned up from CastletonSnob and VG_Addict:

How is Nintendo successful?

How is Nintendo successful when they're consistently behind the times, from not using CDs to having bad online?

forums.escapistmagazine.com

How is Nintendo successful?

How is Nintendo so successful when they're consistently behind the times, whether it's media format (cartridges instead of CDs) or online?

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Forums.

How many times have you been banned from or gotten an infraction in forums?

forums.escapistmagazine.com

How many forums have you been banned from?

How many forums have you been banned from, either temporarily or permanently?

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Also the last post of VG_Addict was April 14, 2020 and the join date for CastletonSnob is April 24, 2020. I feel like is in addition to the above is sufficient evidence to conclude that both are the same individual. Now I'm not going to accuse you of being a bot, even though identical thread creation sets off some alarm bells I don't think you really are.

What I really want to know is: Why you keep asking us this question?

Why should Nintendo go third party?

Could someone tell me why people want them to go software only? And could someone actually make a case, from a business perspective, why it would be better for them? No "Their games would be better on other hardware" or "I want to play their games, but not enough to buy their consoles". From an...

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Could Nintendo go third-party?

Could they? I mean, with how poorly the Wii U is selling, and how many third parties are abandoning it (including possibly Ubisoft), I don't see any point in Nintendo making another console. I think the next console will be a handheld/console hybrid.

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Nintendo software only.

If the NX fails, could Nintendo go software only?

forums.escapistmagazine.com

Also from a Google search, all CastletonSnob or VG_Addict:

Nintendo software only.

What do you think of Nintendo dropping out of the console business and making games for other platforms? Would it be a good business move for them?

hardforum.com

Nintendo software only. - Wii U

If the NX fails, could they go software only?

www.neoseeker.com

Nintendo software only? - Boxing Forum

Talk about the arcade forums, share tips, etc. This will also be the place for new game announcements.

www.boxingscene.com

Nintendo software only.

The Wii U is flopping. Do you think Nintendo would make more money as a software only company?

mlpforums.com

Nintendo software only? | Video Games Open

Nintendo's in a tough spot right now. If the NX fails, could they go software only? Do you think they would make more money?

forum.rpg.net

Who exactly are you, and why do you ask the same questions everywhere? Why is it so important to you?

Maybe they missed their calling in working for the FBI or CIA? Seem to be very thorough, to the point of beating a dead horse.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Your point? The "HA!" was me just being a trollish dick to the statement directed at Ubisoft and Activision. Not really towards you. The AC games for me are objectively bad, because they do little to improve, and each entry only seems make the game less fun, more work, and all of the intrusive micotransactions.


Nice and all, but as I far as I'm concerned, they've done nothing worthwhile nor worth investing towards.



Glad we agree. For the record, I played:

• 5 COD games.
• 3 AC Games.

More than I’ve played. I also still have the complete edition of Cold War because I was jonesing for a new shooter and I like the setting, but never ended up playing it. Maybe I’ll finally install it (again) but actually play it this time since I’ll never get the money back.

FTR, that was also the purchase that prompted my “no new game purchases” initiative this year, which I’ve held to.