Saying that you have to keep your games on your system because otherwise there would be no reason to choose one system over another is a strange admission. And not one that on its face benefits gamers.
Always assume that corporate decisions benefits the corporation. If decisions somehow align with customers needs and wants, it’s a positive side effect.
That’s been the motto of video game console makers basically since the beginning of time, they want vendor lock-in. We are starting to see things shift a little bit. Microsoft is becoming a software company over hardware wanting their games to be on every platform.(GamePass is amazing. I say this as a PS fan boy) Sony is starting to follow suit with PC release these days. Helldivers stands out as the only game I can think of they have released same day on PC and not 6 months to a year later.
Nintendo will always be eccentric it’s kind of been their thing since the release of the NES. No one thought the NES would sell and basically had to give retailed their games and be paid back later by the retail stores. Just accept Nintendo for being a little different than everyone else and that’s okay to be a little bit of a snowflake. We need something/one a little different
I know what you mean, but Nintendo is a pretty bad example to illustrate that sentiment. I mean, they totally do corporate crap to benefit them and not the players obviously, but the Zelda series is literally built around the gimmicks of the console. They start thinking about a gimmick, either on the console and / or how to turn that into a gameplay gimmick, and then they make a Zelda game around that. OoT had the rumble pack and then tried to do Ura Zelda that was supposed to be the system seller for the DD64 - but that blew up and was salvaged between Master Mode and Majora’s Mask. The GameCube had Four Swords with the connection to the GBA and the multiplayer. The Wii had Skyward Sword with the motion thing, the Wii U had the separate tablet. The DS then the 3DS weren’t too relevant for Zelda but they tried, and other games did rely on it.
I’m not saying it’s a fact for the whole series, but Nintendo is particularly famous for developing a gimmick console and then building games around that, so yes, the physical console is actually relevant to the game you want to play it on, you’d be hard pressed to port that elsewhere and emulators are always weird and have a lot of work to adapt into something that makes sense on a single screen with a basic gamepad.
Saying that you have to keep your games on your system because otherwise there would be no reason to choose one system over another is a strange admission. And not one that on its face benefits gamers.
Always assume that corporate decisions benefits the corporation. If decisions somehow align with customers needs and wants, it’s a positive side effect.
I
That’s been the motto of video game console makers basically since the beginning of time, they want vendor lock-in. We are starting to see things shift a little bit. Microsoft is becoming a software company over hardware wanting their games to be on every platform.(GamePass is amazing. I say this as a PS fan boy) Sony is starting to follow suit with PC release these days. Helldivers stands out as the only game I can think of they have released same day on PC and not 6 months to a year later.
Nintendo will always be eccentric it’s kind of been their thing since the release of the NES. No one thought the NES would sell and basically had to give retailed their games and be paid back later by the retail stores. Just accept Nintendo for being a little different than everyone else and that’s okay to be a little bit of a snowflake. We need something/one a little different
Well put! I like Nintendo for what it is. I don’t like everything it does, but, a lot of it. And, a lot of it is excellent.
Bold of you to think a corp is doing anything to benefit their consumers.
I know what you mean, but Nintendo is a pretty bad example to illustrate that sentiment. I mean, they totally do corporate crap to benefit them and not the players obviously, but the Zelda series is literally built around the gimmicks of the console. They start thinking about a gimmick, either on the console and / or how to turn that into a gameplay gimmick, and then they make a Zelda game around that. OoT had the rumble pack and then tried to do Ura Zelda that was supposed to be the system seller for the DD64 - but that blew up and was salvaged between Master Mode and Majora’s Mask. The GameCube had Four Swords with the connection to the GBA and the multiplayer. The Wii had Skyward Sword with the motion thing, the Wii U had the separate tablet. The DS then the 3DS weren’t too relevant for Zelda but they tried, and other games did rely on it.
I’m not saying it’s a fact for the whole series, but Nintendo is particularly famous for developing a gimmick console and then building games around that, so yes, the physical console is actually relevant to the game you want to play it on, you’d be hard pressed to port that elsewhere and emulators are always weird and have a lot of work to adapt into something that makes sense on a single screen with a basic gamepad.