Topic: What would you do if [insert company here] dropped out of manufacturing gaming systems and became a third party developer? A totally mature discussion.

Zombi U - I think it will be fine. You know how you scan in RE: Revelations all the time to find items - that can get a bit tedious, but it will be much easier with the Game Pad, and hey, it will be less tedious than having to collect stupid stuff as achievements or whatever. Tedious and Fun there's a thin line there, and it's up to a good developer to do it right, test it... I think I heard nothing but praises for Zombi U.

As much as I dont want too see Nintendo go the route that Sega did I have to say with the Wii U it looks like they just might. The one thing Nintendo seems to have that Sega didnt is success in the handheld market. I am not a Nintendo fanboy but I have to say Nintendo has always dominated the handheld market. Even if their console systems were bombs compared to the other systems of that generations their handhelds always did better. Look at the Gamecube and GBA or the Wii and the DS. And it is in that reason that if the Wii U does tank it would have to be tank hard where the handheld portion of Nintendo couldnt save them.

With that said IF they were to exit console gaming all together (including the handheld market) I probably wont do nothing or effect me in any big way. I mean with Sony still around and MS there will always be a console system in my living room of some sort and along with a gaming PC and my phone I dont think I will run out of games. If anything I would just buy the Mario and Zelda games if they did produce them for other gaming systems on those other systems like I do with Sonic and Sega's other IPS.

Twas a joke.

If they want to allow you to play the game without the TV then it will have to be optional and I can imagine the "free from the TV" feature being something a lot of developers will want to use in their games. That would basically involve having to make the game work without a second screen being displayed at all.

The scope thing in ZombiU is something we've already seen in 3DS games but even then it was optional and they gave you an analogue stick option. OoT 3D had it for looking around and aiming the slingshot/bow but you could use the analogue stick if you wanted to. I don't see why you would want to because the gyro controls in that game worked really well (please put that in the Wii U's first Zelda Nintendo) but at the same time I don't see why any devs would make it required for play for "core" games when all of the buttons are there.

You are a reassuring man, skywake. Hopefully my fears are unfounded. :]

Magnufacturing gaming system or not, Nintendo may become a third party for the other systems as well, and use it to its advantage to attract more users of its downgraded devices. Lets say Nintendo develops a multiplatform Zelda, and then two exclusive for the WiiU. Clearly many PS3/360 users will end buying the WiiU to play the other two. Of course MS and Sony might do the same, drop a bone or two to the other users and then have many of them becoming users of their systems.

Nintendo works best when they have their own technology to use.

if nintendo became a third party then i'll pretty much be done with console and handheld gaming, and only be left with online gaming which would kinda suck .-.

The maturity in this thread was thrown out the window it seems.

[/div]

That's all a myth perpetuated by people who think a capitalist open market is a good thing. The reality is that it isn't. History has proven that 1) even when there's a monopoly there's still competition and 2) a monopoly is not an incentive for the vendor to produce poor quality goods. When poor goods are produced under a monopoly it is almost always because of other reasons. And amusingly enough, capitalism is a direct cause for low-quality goods. When corporations need to compete on price, corners are cut, and almost invariably the consumer is the one that misses out.

The real enemies of this industry are commoditisation and price deflation. Not that a single console would fix that, but there you go.

Anyway, on topic: It amuses me that people seem to think if Nintendo went third-party it would change its approach to software. Not likely.

I'd much rather see Nintendo acquired by Apple or Samsung or something and set to the task of producing exclusive content and a hardware add-on for tablet gaming.

If Nintendo were 3rd party then the first parties would need a second screen to emulate DS games, and G&W DS games! Oh and stereoscopic 3D to emulate 3DS games

I rather Nintendo acquire Apple.

Apple overprices their hardware anyways and makes poor decisions in how they make their products. Making a phone out of glass is the most stupidest idea I've ever seen. Would you drive a car made completely out of glass? Would you buy a computer made compltely out of glass? How about your clothes? Glass too?

No thank you ma'am.

And frankly, I don't want to see a "One World" industry because that means companies will cheat consumers out of money. Look at America as a prime example in how our government runs.

No thanks. Again.

Yes, either Sony or Apple and let the compaction be against microsoft

I rather Nintendo acquire Apple.

The difference here is that Apple's in the position where it could acquire Nintendo (whether Nintendo wanted it or not), and Nintendo will never be at a scale where it could even come close to acquiring Apple.

Apple overprices their hardware anyways

Yeah, according to you. Enough millions of other people are happy to pay for what Apple offers, thereby rendering your "overpriced" argument moot. A product can't be overpriced if millions and millions of people buy it, by definition. Products simply don't sell at that kind of scale if they're genuinely and objectively overpriced.

Value is the eye of the beholder etc etc.

Making a phone out of glass is the most stupidest idea I've ever seen. Would you drive a car made completely out of glass? Would you buy a computer made compltely out of glass? How about your clothes? Glass too?

I also don't by a car to make phone calls, and I don't play games on my clothes. The "OMG a phone is not a t-shirt!" argument is the... strangest... anti-Apple tirade I've ever heard. So congratulations on that.

And frankly, I don't want to see a "One World" industry because that means companies will cheat consumers out of money. Look at America as a prime example in how our government runs.

The Government is not a business, in the same sense as private enterprise, but it is actually closer to the capitalist model. There are multiple parties (businesses) and different scales - there's local, state and federal Government (small business, SME and large enterprise).

So in (correctly) saying the American Government model doesn't work like it should, you're actually proving the case for the alternative. Thanks for that

Yo look up gorilla glass before you started spreading BS.

And I don't see any windows laptops on the market that are reaching the resolution of the new macbooks.

One nintendo buying apple is impossible, and would you want a company with ****** Hardware as well OS desgin.

Hun, I'm not even anti-Apple. If you believe your own lies, go ahead

Secondly, their products are overpriced regardless if thousands or millions of people bought it. I'm pretty sure you'd be the first to say Nintendo's 3DS launch price was overpriced but had I used the "millions sold" arguement, you would dispute it regardless, huh? Just a guess, not a guarantee. Backpedal if you must. I just think it's stupid how there's no expandable memory and the fact the iPhone4 costs $650 for 8GB of memory and tech that's "outdated".

Third, you took my "car" and "t-shirt" arguement out of context and manipulated it to your liking. Clever? Nope. More like predictable. Phones are portable devices. As in, it's supposed to be taken everywhere with you. The iPhone4 and 4S' design is stupid as far as I'm concerned. Makes you wonder why other manufacturers don't make their portable products out of glass, huh? Drop your iPhone accidentally and there's a 90% chance it'll be cracked. A phones like Samsung Galaxy SIII? Haha, nope. Stupid design. Argue if you must, but I'm frankly telling like it is.

Fourth, I never said the Gov't was a business. Again, manipulate what I say and what I meant to cater to your point. And thanks for telling me things I had already known as well as not expand on the point you're trying to get at.

Actually, glass Is a sturdy scratch-resistant material and it's perfect for phones and similar items, specially if they use capacitive touchscreens.

That's what they tell you and want you believe.

What lies did I say. Looks up corning gorilla glass its an industry standard for Christs sake.

And you do realize the galaxy SIII is also around $650 also.

Secondly, their products are overpriced regardless if thousands or millions of people bought it.

Nope, you're wrong. Unless you can prove using data and other relevant sources that Apple prices its products at a point where it's making more than a fair profit than you've got nothing more than an opinion there. I wouldn't try to prove me wrong either - it's months of research in that project and I already know the answer.

Secondly, their products are overpriced regardless if thousands or millions of people bought it. I'm pretty sure you'd be the first to say Nintendo's 3DS launch price was overpriced but had I used the "millions sold" arguement, you would dispute it regardless, huh?

Nope. I was supportive of Nintendo's original hardware price, and I thought it was a dumb move to slash margin, let alone give away the 20 games. I've always maintained that developers and publishers should be earning more.

Third, you took my "car" and "t-shirt" arguement out of context and manipulated it to your liking.

Nope. Comparing products from completely different product categories is an utterly useless, null and void argument. A phone is not comparable in any way, shape, or form to a car or T-shirt.

For the record, cars are designed to crumble (i.e, break), in the event of an accident, because the priority is to protect the cabin. No part of the iPhone is designed to break (that's not to say it can't be broken, but it's no more fragile than a Samsung). Cars are more vulnerable to damage than phones. Even by your own ridiculous comparison you're off track.

Fourth, I never said the Gov't was a business. Again, manipulate what I say and what I meant to cater to your point. And thanks for telling me things I had already known as well as not expand on the point you're trying to get at.

If you don't think the Government is a business, then don't use it in an argument about what is and isn't a good business. Debating 101.