Why did 3rd party devs betray Nintendo?

this, nintendo are pretty much the disney of vidya
a bunch of fucking assholes.
close this thread

Attached: chrome_beUfZ7qAxN.png (1273x666, 1.38M)

*gimped by mici-cd

The same publisher is putting Bulletstorm instead of Borderlands

Now explain that one instead of Borderlands because "It might not sell well"

Mini CD was made to combat piracy, and it worked.

PS2 scene was still rampant with piracy. Devs still made most games for it that gen

The switch is apparently easy as shit to port to, it just doesn't have the power to render the good stuff without some fiddling unlike the other consoles

By this logic, the SNES shouldn't have had any 3rd party gamed either because of the Genesis.

they wouldn't expect as much revenue from it as borderlands

And yet PS2 did better then Gamecube

I bought a Switch to try out Splatoon, Odyssey and get the latest Smash. I have never felt compelled to buy a PS4 or Xbone.

Attached: mary.jpg (187x333, 32K)

This

>and it worked

Attached: 1538089621269.png (141x247, 78K)

That doesn't make any sense

Because Nintendo has only been making gimmick platforms since the wii and 3rd party devs don't feel like developing shit on 5 year old hardware.

if they were to port borderlands, they would expect more revenue than it than most of their other games, if they don't believe they'll get that expected profit they won't bother with porting it.

>muh anecdote
Ok how does that contradict my post?
You really think RDR2, GTA, FIFA, COD, and every other high selling third party game wouldn't bring in casuals for Switch if it could run it?

Because it was easier to port or was made by a semi independent developer who had the capabilities of porting a game?

That or they just don't want a worse version of their game to deter customers/mess up their marketing stuff.

That still doesn't make any sense so they port a game that flopped instead

Borderlands is guarenteed to sell more than Bulletstorm

This is part of it, but people forget that what really made Nintendo not give a shit about third parties is that they discovered that unlike their competition, they can just make a console that's profitable right off the bat unlike Sony and Microsoft making them loss leaders.

They discovered this with the Wii, and ever since they have stuck to the same formula of making the same underpowered console because at the end of the day they actually make money on consoles sold. This means that unlike Microsoft and Sony, who lose money on every console sold for the first few years and hope to make it back on license fees to third-party publishers, Nintendo doesn't have to do that at all.

Unlike what says, it's not an issue because at the end of the day, Nintendo no longer need to cater to a third party to make games on their console. They make money on the sale of the console, on the licensing fees to whatever garbage game they gets ports of, AND on every Nintendo game sold.

Its a PS3/360 shooter
Bulletstorm is also, a PS3/360 shooter, but Borderlands is more popular

Why would you port the less popular one?

Isn't the PS4 and X1 still getting games? They're 5 year old hardware.

Nintendo sells more games in a year than Sony does in a generation, guess where third parties would rather publish their games?

And they're at the end of their life, with rumors of PS5 hitting next year. Meanwhile the Switch is at the beginning of it's life.

You know most of the PS5's games are gonna be cross gen shit user

Nigger what? Not them but they’re talking about getting a switch for the first party aspect. What does this have to do with that

As with every new platform. The point still stands that Nintendo is literally just a gimmick factory now. Hell the regular PS4 and X1 are both more powerful than the switch and they're already showing their age.

Did you even read my post?

Gearbox can only work on so many games at ones, will Borderlands come to the Switch later down the line maybe? Who knows. Right now it's clearly not worth spending all the money, effort and time for what they believe will be very meager returns.

However, People Can Fly, an independently owned company not tied to Gearbox, who happens to be the developers of Bulletstorm, who are not working on Borderlands, being a different company, have the people and time to do so, and believe they can get some pity money out of reselling an old game. And therefore Gearbox are happy to publish the game because there is far less personal investment for them, since another company is developing it. They just have to throw a couple of bucks at them and get the games out to retail. Now it becomes far more profitable, and that's why we are getting a port of Bulletstorm and not Borderlands.

Starting to get it?

We don't really need 3 PC Boxes do we

>Do a lazy ass port.
>It sells well.
>Try again.
>It sells.
>Oh fuck we need do something.
>Do a even lazy shit.
>When it finally sells like shit throw some shitty excuse.

Fuck this shit.

Attached: 1538078262039.png (500x500, 200K)

Obviously the market disagrees with you since most companies decided it wouldn't be profitable to support Nintendo's gimmick boxes.

Gearbox still OK'd development of Bulletstorm for the Switch and not Borderlands, a game way more popular and more likely to sell than Bulletstorm, a game that did not sell a million at release. They would probably take around the same amount of effort to put on the Switch, they're just retarded.

Yet people on the market still buy those gimmick boxes

Most companies still want money due to its success and just dump cashgrabs onto. They still need the money.

Awful hardware

they didn't "betray" nintendo. they left nintendo and their bullshit behind when another company started offering them a stable platform and a fairer deal.

Attached: cartridgecosts.jpg (725x468, 69K)

The issue isn't Nintendo, but publishers thinking that they are superior to them and think that Nintendo is totally out of their league, then just shoving shitty ports and minor shit because "it don't worth the effort"

Nintendo could do a gayman box that output at 4k and the treatment would be the same.

Attached: 1537453901618.jpg (643x754, 325K)

Yea they dump cashgrabs because that's what profitable. They just do some lazy port of last gen's games and call it a day because fully developing a game for that terrible piece of hardware would be financial suicide. Deny it all you want this but this isn't some sort of super secret plan from the industry to fuck Nintendo. Nintendo is the one that fucked 3rd party devs out of making games for their part of the market, not the other way around.

Ah, I see what the problem is. You don't know how to read.

GEARBOX ALREADY HAS THEIR HANDS FULL, THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR MANPOWER TO PORT BORDERLANDS.

THE BULLETSTORM DEVS, LOCATED IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, HAVE THE MANPOWER. GEARBOX WHO ARE BUSY WITH BORDERLANDS DOESN'T REALLY
HAVE TO LIFT A FINGER FOR THAT PORT.

It's not a question what is harder to port(though Borderlands is a HELL of a lot harder), it's that people can only work so many hours in a day.

>It's not Nintendo's fault they are making gimmick boxes after gimmick boxes and have retarded fees associated to their consoles
>They could easily make a console that prints money but they don't because reasons
Keep sucking that dick user.

How does Gearbox not have the manpower but the Bulletstorm devs do? Do you have proof their hands aren't full?

sony just gave developers better deal. in the end video games is business.

>Actually supporting devs being lazy
Only shills would support this.
They can't know if their games won't sell well if they don't try. Lazy old ports are just weak and pititful

>Mini CD was made to combat piracy, and it worked.
it "worked" so well that the gamecube flopped and, despite having powerful hardware for the time, still missed out on a lot of games because of the minidiscs' limited storage space.

>Nintendo can make millions by themselves
>Square Enix makes an exclusive, sells almost 2 million on Switch
>"Its financial suicide"

Because 3rd party can't into optimization. If they couldn't get shit run decently on a goddamn PC, how can you expect them to do it for the Switch? Nevermind the fact the indie game devs are heavily supporting the Switch and Nintendo are returning the favor in kind.

>actually supporting nintendo being lazy with their hardware
only shills would support this.
they can't keep making consoles that can't run modern third-party games and then complain about not getting a ton of third-party support.

It took people like 6 years to figure out you could cut then disc to be smalller
Before then piracy was almost nonexistent

Oh please, Nintendo has been doing this for decades with handhelds. And guess what? Those handhelds got tons of unique games made for it.

It is third parties who have gotten lazier over the years

"optimization" isn't a magic wand that devs can wave to make every game run perfectly on switch. if they ported all their games at the potato-mode settings it would take to run on switch (along with cutting any side content that can't fit on nintendo's overpriced cartridges), you'd all complain about that too.

Your theory is dumb as they made money on the n64 and GameCube both right at launch, fucking zoomers forget that that was industry standard until the Playstation 2 and really made standard practice by Microsoft with the Og Xbox and Nintendo has made money from the get go with literally every generation except the Switch and even then, the Switch started being profitable by itself after the initial print run anyways.

Because the Borderlands developers are busy making a video game called Borderlands, and they don't have time to mess around making ports for system that will net them only a minor amount of money when they are struggling with just making the game sell acceptable on the more profitable consoles as it is.

Video game deadlines are incredibly fucking tight if you weren't aware.
This is an industry where there isn't time to release a game in a working state and they are basically forced to continue development after the game is out through patches. That's how fucking tight it is. Adding a port of a hugely different system on top of that is really hard. Ever heard of the saying "the straw that broke the camel's back"?

> Do you have proof their hands aren't full?
The fact that they are porting it kinda proves that they aren't.

Multiple 3rd party devs have shown they can afford the carts as Japan gets the special treatment every time with physical releases

The problem is they're fucking cheap

those were also different than the switch. they were dedicated handhelds made to run handheld games.
with the switch, nintendo is selling the idea of home console style games that you can play on the go. the expectations are different, which is why people are shitting on games like the link's awakening remake that would not be getting criticized anywhere near as harshly if they were made for the 3ds instead.

Hell if Nintendo did put out BOTW at 4K 144 fps day 1 3rd parties would keep an even greater distance out of fear of living in an impossibly big shadow

>Companies are just lazy they don't want the money
How delusional can you be? It's not complicated my man, if it was profitable companies would be doing it. This ain't your moms blowjob stand, they actually know what will and won't make them money for the most part.

why should third parties be obligated to pay an extra nintendo tax when they don't have to?
why is it never nintendo's responsibility to make their platform as attractive and easy for third parties as possible?

PS1 and 2 were a piece of shit to work and devs worked with it just fine. Sony lied to everyone with PS3 devkits and they still worked around and made games.

Switch have all the fucking tools available right off the bat, from unity to UE4 ton top of using Nvidia API and offering proper support. They are fucking cheap and lazy cunts because development is Non issue.

Attached: 1553179187721.png (282x300, 76K)

Nintendo has had strained relationships with 3rd parties since the early days of the NES

>Because the Borderlands developers are busy making a video game called Borderlands
Yea, and another team right now is porting the original to everything but Switch. Why did they not consider that one instead of wasting resources on Bulletstorm? Also don't try to sympathy whore me with a sob story, especially that hack Randy's company
>The fact that they are porting it kinda proves that they aren't.
That's not proof.

Worst part they only gave them lunch money for an advertising budget
>He’s a couple playable demos and some YouTube videos
It sold so much it literally ran out of stock day 1 in japan

>which is why people are shitting on games like the link's awakening remake
Only Yea Forums is shitting on it

Also tons of indie games sell well and they're not even close to console style

And then nintendo sells 10+ million of their exclusives on their consoles, and 3rd party are once and forevermore btfo

This kid is very, very stupid

Because everytime Nintendo tries to be open with third parties they fuck them over in some way

It literally supports UE3, UE4 unity, snowdrop and a bunch of other game engines right out of the gate

Your statement is explicitly false as shown by the PS3.

Rebuttal?

where did this meme come from that the ps1 was difficult to develop for? the saturn was the actual clusterfuck back then, not the ps1.

Nintendo and 3rd party isn't the same genius. Nintendo doesn't have to pay royalty fees to itself. Nintendo doesn't have to pay extra for its own cartridges. Nintendo doesn't even have to market their shit because all they gotta say is Zelda or Mario and the whole world is already sold. What works for someone doesn't work for everyone dipshit.

>where did this meme come from that the ps1 was difficult to develop for?
From the weird minds of Nintendo shills where Nintendo can do no wrong and the whole world is out to fuck them over.

The whole notion of "avoiding nintendo platforms because 1st party games are too intimidating" is retarded. Nintendo games being massive juggernauts during the NES years didn't stop Castlevania, Contra, DQ, FF, Gradius, Mega Man and countless other 3rd party titles from becoming hits and creating sustained franchises. Nintendo 1st party games have to sell massive amounts because they're supposed to sell the consoles themselves, while 3rd party games are there to sweeten the deal once customers have the system. Nintendo games doing well means 3rd party games ALSO do well because there are more console-owning customers who can notice their games. 1st party games are ADDITIVE to 3rd party successes, not subtractive.

when has nintendo ever not made third-parties jump through ridiculous and arbitrary hoops that don't exist on other platforms?

Serouisly what the hell with all this laziness
You’d think they’d be able to develop some smaller games that don’t need 15 Million sales to succeed
Some of the best 3DS games had still images, literally who voice acting and music made in fucking FL studios

Their handhelds
The Wii U (although it flopped)

7th gen on forward

And people wonder why they rather work with indie devs who are too small and scare to burn Nintendo

Attached: 8CDA6FC0-AC76-4D3A-BCDE-441D5D2BBCA7.jpg (600x337, 116K)

Because when you develop for Nintendo you're literally competing the biggest publisher on that platform

>Yea, and another team right now is porting the original to everything but Switch.
Ah. You see that's because it's being ported by Blind Squirrel Games, who are god awful hacks who doesn't even know how to port games properly. That and you know, the same argument still applies, they are busy porting it to three systems, most likely they don't have to manpower and knowledge to make a port for the Switch, again, it might come later when they have less of a workload. Hell, maybe they even tried but found that the game ran like shit so they were forced to scrap that version since it was just not worth making an entire new unique version of the game just for that one console which probably wouldn't have sold that many copies in the first place.
>That's not proof.
Well. Only time will tell I suppose. If People Can Fly go bankrupt in a few years then working on to many projects much might very will have been the reason why. However People Can Fly obviously think they have the manpower for it, because otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.

N64 did do them money, but if you think the gamecube made them money you're one stupid motherfucker. Hell, they were pulling gamecubes off store shelves in europe as soon as 2003. Let alone the fact that it only sold 22 million units worldwide in it's lifespan. The entire existence of the Wii was precisely because the gamecube was such an economic fuckup, that they went with a way cheaper console that was pretty much 2 gamecubes taped together.

WiiU.

Remember every third party doing mental gymnastics and skipping the platform? Rayman even was done and they delayed again just to port to other consoles.

And EA pulling the plug just because Nintendo cockblocked them from using origin as online platform.

Well if manpower really is a problem they cold you know, outsource it as well. Instead of just flat out ignoring the Switch and giving it a game that's not guaranteed to sell well, give it to Panic Button or some shit.

I don't know how anyone could have seen EA being hacks on the Wii U especially after the Mass Effect 3 situation

Learn what the word literally means.

Literally right now
They even handed out free dev kits to companies like 2K, Capcom and Activision

Pokemon, Mario, and Smash bring in casuals to the Switch so you even hear yourself

What was the deal with the Mass Effect 3 situation on Wii U?

Outsourcing still costs money. Presumably Gearbox doesn't see themselves getting enough of a return from that investment.

>Their handhelds
their handhelds came with the arbitrary hoop of shit hardware even compared to other handhelds for their time. third parties put up with it because there was never any serious competition, much like they put up with nintendo's far worse business practices in the '80s.
>The Wii U (although it flopped)
the wii u came with the arbitrary hoops of outdated hardware and an outdated powerpc architecture that everyone else, even apple, sony and xbox, had finally moved away from.

>Release on Wiiu at full price and some minor tweaks.
>Entire trilogy gets released not long ago on other consoles at discount.

See the issue?

If only game devs would actually optimize their shitty spaghetti code instead of relying on consumers have extra compute power.

and yet they made a console that is incapable of running their current games without serious compromises, AND they brought back cartridges on top of that.

Companies literally have to pay extra to get the games on cartridges as opposed to discs. If that's not jumping through hoops to you what is it?

Shit hardware is not a loop. It is something third parties work with if they want to put their games on.

Its incredibly broad as well. Consoles have shit hardware compared to PCs, but developers still prefer to work with them due to sales numbers. You can apply it to anything.

If only Nintendo could release a console that isn't outdated on day 1 instead of relying on devs pulling miracles to make games run on it.

more like they're starstruck at the idea of working with nintendo, and they haven't been around long enough to have been burned by nintendo's atrocious past business practices.

It'd probably still be more of an investment than Bulletstorm that's for sure, but yet they're doing it anyway.

>Maybe if Nintendo stopped making hardware that's much harder to develop for that PC/Xbox/PlayStation
They've never had hardware that's hard to develop for.

>It's not powerful.
>Meanwhile still run like shit on other consoles that have way more power even with "pro" patch.

Power mean shit when devs are too stupid to even use the bare minimum from hardware. If anything having way too much power make them lazy since they can patch later or have "pro" mode as crutch. I take a polished 30 fps game over a piece of crap that barely hits 50.

Attached: 1552084210620.jpg (547x531, 81K)

Nintendo systems are typically easier to develop for than competitors but the problem is that developers will take the harder systems because it covers more.

>It is something third parties work with if they want to put their games on.
why should they have to when there are less shitty alternatives?
>Consoles have shit hardware compared to PCs
sure, but it's nowhere near as much of an issue with sony and microsoft because they're still much closer to pc than nintendo is.

The guy who made all of Nintendo's atrocious practices back then has been dead for at least 7 years now

And you never hit yourself in the head as a baby. Some things are just blatantly false user.

>It'd probably still be more of an investment than Bulletstorm that's for sure
Indeed. Which is why they feel less inclined to do so. Since they have more to lose if it fails.

They probably have a pretty good agreement with People Can Fly where the risks are minimal.

How come the practices are still bad to this day then?

>why should they have to when there are less shitty alternatives?
Bigger audience = more money. Its not a loop, its something you as a dev have to work with. Its always been like that.
>sure, but it's nowhere near as much of an issue with sony and microsoft because they're still much closer to pc than nintendo is.
They still have to make compromises. Also development for games on those systems alone is probably way more expensive than just Switch. Its only gonna get more expensive next gen

The fuck? What are you smoking?
Fifa runs fine on Switch
Activision is bring Crash Racing
Capcom has already dropped the superior monster hunter on the system already

>PS2 was hard to work with
That’s a fucking Lie

Uh huh.
Do you actually have anything suggesting they've had a single system that was hard to develop for?

Why would it fail? Bulletstorm is more likely to fail than fucking BORDERLANDS

You're joking right

Making everything one generation behind does makes things incredibly hard to develop for though.

This isn't the 90s anymore. We live in the age of multiplats. There is almost no incentives for developers to make games exclusive, unless they are straight up getting paid for it.

user, there's a reason why every game ran worse on the ps2. Hell the people who made Killzone even said it was harder than the ps3.

Every single fucking dev complained about PS2 you underage retard, from Capcom, Sega to First party itself.

Not mention that SCEA still had the stupid ass anti 2d police active through the whole console lifetime.

How about having to deal with unferior hardware since the wii? How about mini-discs limiting storage space on the gamecube? How about cartridges on the switch literally costing the devs more money? How about having to implement waggle gimmicks on every wii game? Neck yourself kid.

>Making everything one generation behind does makes things incredibly hard to develop for though.
Not really, power isn't as much of a factor as you think it is due to the diminishing returns we've had on it since last gen.

Also that's more of an excuse for bad developers if anything else.

They’re worst practice is paid only and everyone has been doing that for close to a decade

It's not failing as much as not making a big enough return to be worth spending the effort to do so. Big companies don't like to make investments that only make back a small amount of money. It's pretty inefficient.
>Bulletstorm is more likely to fail than fucking BORDERLANDS
Indeed, but as was said, the agreement they have probably sweetens the pot a lot.

>Fuck up one console
>Proceed to drop out of the race in leu of gimmicks
I guess Microsoft should quit the game too then--just focus on the PC market then

>What is Nintendo tax

>t. idiot that doesn't know anything about developing a game or computer hardware
Can ignorant shit cunts just shut the fuck up about shit they literally are incapable of understanding? Idiots like you are the reason companies get away with their lazy trash because you eagerly slurp up their shit flavored cum.

Nintendo is always less generous to the payout for third party devs than the other studios generally

>Bigger audience = more money.
publishers obviously don't agree that they'd be getting a bigger audience and more money by dealing with nintendo's shit hardware. otherwise you'd be getting every game in potato mode on the switch.
>They still have to make compromises.
sure, but those compromises are nothing compared to what's required to make modern games run on the switch. just look at doom. everyone praised that port as a technical marvel for even existing, and it chugs along at 22fps, 576p.
nintendo has put third parties in a tough spot where they have to choose between dumbing down their multiplats during development to compensate for the switch's weak hardware, putting the objectively worst version of the game on the switch so they can say it's on there, or "ignoring the switch."

Can you give some examples of those draconian rules? I’m a youngfag without any context

>t. idiot that doesn't know anything about developing a game or computer hardware
Can ignorant shit cunts just shut the fuck up about shit they literally are incapable of understanding? Idiots like you are the reason Nintendo get away with their lazy trash because you eagerly slurp up their shit flavored cum.

It's bait but why not
>How about having to deal with unferior hardware since the wii?
See >How about mini-discs limiting storage space on the gamecube?
Very few games filled out a mini disc.
>How about cartridges on the switch literally costing the devs more money?
Has nothing to do with the development of the game itself.
>How about having to implement waggle gimmicks on every wii game?
Fun fact, there was no policy on having to implement motion controls on any Nintendo system with it. Those that did it did it by choice.

If you're going into a platform and thinking about the possibilities of your games failing, maybe the best course of action is to NOT PORT THE GAME THAT ALREADY FAILED. I don't any see reason why Bulletstorm is cheaper to put on Switch than Borderlands. They're both PS3/360 shooters.

Most console games today run on the PC equivalent of low to medium, and still barely break the 60fps barrier, if at all.
Making that run and look decently on a tablet isn't as easy as you seem to think it is.

>Also that's more of an excuse for bad developers if anything else.
And wasting 50% of your dev time on optimizing is also kinda bad developing. Even if it's a noble goal.

Seething. Glad you understand you have no argument.

Basically those rules were basic quality control but third parties didn't like the change from the "anything goes" atari days.

You mean at a technical level?
And PS1 and other consoles didn’t have such restrictions?

nintendo placed an arbitrary limit on the number of games a third-party publisher could release on their systems each year. they also had censorship policies that make current sony look tame.

>publishers obviously don't agree that they'd be getting a bigger audience and more money by dealing with nintendo's shit hardware.
They do, as evident by all the super fucking late port from this gen (Dragon Ball, Hellblade, Sword Arts, etc.) and all the tons of lazy old ports from last gen. They still want money.
>putting the objectively worst version of the game on the switch so they can say it's on there, or "ignoring the switch."
Nobody fucking cares about that, nobody that matters. Only forum dwellers actually care about the state of a game. Plenty of people are content with sub 30 FPS games on base PS4 and Xbox One.

>And wasting 50% of your dev time on optimizing is also kinda bad developing
In the sense that anyone who's taking that long is bad at developing a game.

Those were shitty but necessary evil at time. I think you retards don't understand the whole context and just parrot what everyone says.

And MK fucking slapped them in face later.

no they weren't. "quality control" was just the initial excuse that sounded good after the industry crash.
when the market stabilized in the '90s and nintendo's practices barely changed at all, it became obvious that it was really about greed, censorship, and shielding their own games from fair competition on a level playing field, not about quality control.

>See
Nigger games can't run the switch unless devs spend time doing a major downgrade
>Very few games filled out a mini disc.
Patently false
>Has nothing to do with the development of the game itself.
Development is not just the coding you fucking inbred, it's the whole process you go through to deliver a complete good, from A to Z
>Fun fact, there was no policy on having to implement motion controls on any Nintendo system with it. Those that did it did it by choice.
You are forced into it because that's the only thing the console had going for itself. If you released something without waggle gimmick you were literally shooting yourself in the foot.

tl;dr: If you had more than 2 brain cells you'd stop posting

>I don't any see reason why Bulletstorm is cheaper to put on Switch than Borderlands.
It probably isn't, or not by a huge amount. But Gearbox most likely don't have to front as much of the cost since People Can Fly have a huge stake in the project, more so than if they just outsourced it.

Just don't feel like explaining something to you when you clearly are too stupid to understand it.

>And PS1 and other consoles didn’t have such restrictions?
Not really, which is why you had games like Irritating Stick and Bubsy 3d.

and yet they continued being greedy and imposing their draconian rules on third parties well past the point where it could have been excused as a "necessary evil."
ffs, they were still pulling most of the same shit in the n64 era.

>People Can Fly have a huge stake in the project, more so than if they just outsourced it.
>huge stake
That is still yet to be seen, its still wasted resources in an inevitable flop

I was using hyperbole, but premature optimization is a pretty known phenomenon when it comes to programming and game development.

The market never stabilized truly.

Ever notice how when the PS1 came out, it was probably the very first console to have legit shovelware? Like you've got those Phoenix Games trash, you've got those reskinned kart racers, you've got all those incredibly low budget games only the poorest of the poor bought

>You are forced into it because that's the only thing the console had going for itself. If you released something without waggle gimmick you were literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Not him but most of Nintendo's best selling non bundled wii games didn't use motion controls as the main method of input so they clearly weren't necessary.

on the flip side, it's also why sony got games like ff7 and nintendo didn't.

>Create own worst enemy
>They BTFO you for 3 gens
Kino betrayal and revenge story

Attached: best-ps1-games-header-sony-playstation-ps1-720x720.jpg (720x481, 30K)

Well not exactly, that was just because the discs could hold the FMV cutscenes.

N64 is the big exception.

Go look at the list of wii best sellers, you're wrong.

>non bundled

Why are snoybois so obsessed (more like obese, am I right?) about Nintendo? Why can't you faggots just watch your tranny games instead of making another shit thread.

PS3 was a fucking blackhole that is a miracle they didn't dropped the market right there.

Lot of PS1 games could fit on a cart, ton of space were padded with FMV or just junk data, very few games actually utilized the whole thing.

Attached: 1553483760684.jpg (315x396, 28K)

It's hilarious seeing Nintentoddlers still seething after DECADES lmao.
They'll always have an eternal butthurt against Sony .

>Ever notice how when the PS1 came out, it was probably the very first console to have legit shovelware?
no, because it wasn't. the nes and snes had plenty of shovelware. for example: every awful "game" that ljn shat out on them. hell, ljn alone is living proof that the "quality control" excuse for nintendo's business practices was bullshit.

I already know it, and I know you don't. I just call out idiots now because they are either trolls or actually stupid. If you really wanted to know you could have just looked it up on the internet. But you don't know and don't care, so you can go fuck yourself in half.

>zoomer who grew up with PS2
Fuck outta here kiddo

>That is still yet to be seen,
From the developers:
>Bulletstorm’s future is in our hands. That’s not to say that we’re doing anything with it right now, but the sales of the remastered version showed us the potential, and showed us it’s a real thing and we need to really think about it in the coming future…
For them it's basically a way to safeguard interest in the IP and remind people that it exists.

>ts still wasted resources in an inevitable flop
Resources most likely spend by People Can Fly and not Gearbox.

But at the end of the day, we don't know a single fucking thing compared to their financing department and will most likely never understand the risks that comes with publishing video games.

>because it wasn't. the nes and snes had plenty of shovelware
Not really. As bad as they were they weren't shovelware tiers of bad as much as they were misguided.

All those LJN games were licensed tie ins with some popular brand attached to them. All the Playstation shovelware was some original shit no one wanted

You wanna know how bad the NES could have been? Look at all the Color Dreams unlicensed games and get back to me

BECAUSE THEY LITERALLY CANNOT COMPETE WITH NINTENDO'S GAMES.

Whatever you say mister elite game developer. How's that hello world coming along.

>Resources most likely spend by People Can Fly and not Gearbox.
Gearbox STILL has to pay for Distribution of the game mind you. They agreed to this

PS3 outsold 360 in the end.
Even Sony """"failures""""" are mere setbacks lol

there were n64 games that had fmv cutscenes, so that excuse doesn't really work. the real reason nintendo didn't get ff7 is that it was simply too big and too ambitious to fit into an n64 cartridge.
same goes for dragon quest vii, which used only a little bit of fmv here and there. the n64's cartridges couldn't hold its 100+ hours of legit gameplay.

Reminder the PS3 lost Sony 6 billion USD

Distribution is also probably nothing to them.

user, the ps3 cost them almost 4bn.
Selling more is irrelevant if they sales agent enough to make up the losses.

still can't believe people not realized that NU-SONY is guaranteeing exclusives tittles for ps4/ps5 EVEN FUCKIN DEADITA
if you think the americanization of wont harm weeb games think twice

Attached: Picture_unrelated_enterprise_cookies_Holland.jpg (604x476, 53K)

Nintendo did not have a console that could run borderlands at the time it was released, and developers don’t have to re release old games just nintendo finally decided to put out a shitbox that could run it.

Both were stupid and lost ton of money. And you are forgetting about YLoD and RROD.

Just saying that X or Y got 10 gorillions mean shit when the whole numbers says that profit were negative.

they were historically awful. let's be real: they were shovelware.
licensed games can still be shovelware. the superman license didn't stop superman 64 from being legendary shovelware.

Debatable, but we're going in circles at this point

Its a retarded decision end of discussion.

>and developers don’t have to re release old games just nintendo finally decided to put out a shitbox that could run it.
Have you SEEN the Switch's library? It is NOTHING but old ports of games it can finally run from the PS3/360 era.

Attached: 1521344180265.jpg (600x600, 35K)

>Its a retarded decision end of discussion.
And how many years of experience publishing video games do you have under your belt, Mr.Economics guy?

I love hearing about this stuff, the industry is young enough where you can see the clear cause and effect of things from the earliest days to now

Hey, don't forget the smartphone tier indie games that almost makes the Google Play store look sophisticated in comparison.

Not him but I think his point is that devs don't HAVE to, as in they aren't morally obligated to release 10 year old games because Nintendo can finally run them.

Anyone could have more experience than Randy Pitchford and his company user

>there were n64 games that had fmv cutscenes, so that excuse doesn't really work
There were about 3 games that had them, they were extremely short and only had about 2 per game.

>the n64's cartridges couldn't hold its 100+ hours of legit gameplay.
One, FF7 isn't 100+ hours
Two, the whole reason why the game used multiple discs was the cutscenes.

If it could run it, why skip out on money other than just not caring?

bullshit argument that already got destroyed by .

>There were about 3 games that had them, they were extremely short and only had about 2 per game.
gee, it's almost like they were smaller and less ambitious games than ff7.
>One, FF7 isn't 100+ hours
no, but dragon quest vii was, which is what i was talking about there.

They didn't, Nintendo betrayed them by not switching to disc drives. Which made it harder to develop games for them. By the time the Wii rolled around, Juggernauts like COD, Fifa, Battlefield & GTA had already made their home on the PS & Xbox

and if they could do both even more people would buy it. no wonder a 6 year old console is outselling it currently

when they do port old games to the switch, you guys complain that they're just being lazy and throwing cash-grab scraps at it.

Because there's no guaranty that people will buy a 10 year old game at full price that you had to spend money porting. LA Noire for example sold less than 500k copies. Now I don't know how much it cost for them to make the port, but 500k is ridiculously low so it's not hard to understand why devs aren't jumping on it.

>gee, it's almost like they were smaller and less ambitious games than ff7.
Which is the point, they could do it on n64 because they didn't have extremely long cutscenes filling out the space on the cart.

>but dragon quest vii was
Which also isn't 100+ hours. Or as large as an n64 cart.

Because LA Noire was a shit game

Don't port shit games and they might sell well

People play Nintendo consoles for bing bing wahoo, also they're always one gen behind in specs.

how is a port anything less than a cash grab

why are you complaining about not getting them, then?

Not the same guy. Im sick of cash grabs

The game sold 5mil+ copies moron. I didn't care for it but obviously other people did. Skyrim sold 1.15mil on the switch vs 6 mil on the original release for PS3, 3mil for PC, 3mil for PS4. At this point your just slurping on Nintendo's cock or you're trolling.

Want something to really blow your mind.
During most of the 90s Nintendo and their distributors was running an illegal price fixing cartel in Europe.

nytimes.com/2002/10/31/business/europe-fines-nintendo-147-million-for-price-fixing.html

It is kinda odd how such a generic huge greedy corporation has such a big "cuddly mr nice guy" reputation with customers.

They also do a lot of fucked up shit in Japan where they are heavily into lobbying for incredibly restrictive copyright controlling laws.

The remaster sold poorly on every system

Mostly true however I would add the caveat that Nintendo is a true toy company thats intended audience is children. Because of this I believe Nintendo realized they want to have tighter control as to what can ship on to their products. Nintendo realized this after the gamecube era that it would never be able to compete with Sony and Xbox for the teen/ adult share of the market and essentially refocused on the kid market. Nintendo has done extremely well in this regard.

The majority of Switch owners are 25 year old men

They want their games but want to keep sucking off Sony because they’re poorfags

Attached: 21BFDB97-BDA7-4669-B6AF-5CB553EA15A4.jpg (600x458, 112K)

To be fair these days 25 year old men are basically just young children with beards.

see
Even Doom, which is only 2 years old, only sold 400k on the switch vs 3mil on PS4. Now get Nintendo's dick out of your mouth and realize that porting old games in inferior hardware is not guaranteed profits.

*Children and mentally stunted adults
FTFY

Lol buzzwords and no arguments.
Cry more toddlers

Where are you getting these numbers from?

vgchartz.com/
Let me guess you're going to say that the numbers are fake/unreliable now?

>vgchartz.com/
SHIGGY DIGGY

Attached: 1553364087723.jpg (500x375, 120K)

Like fucking clockwork.