Which 3rd party exclusives are they sitting on except Bayonetta 2/3? I can’t remember that many.
Nintendo has the same dumb practices, but they do it with their own IPs, which is a little less annyoing. Also they aren’t the main player like Sony has been for the last two decades. They just own the Mario-and-Zelda-tablet.
In the 80s and 90s, third party exclusives were a necessity because you were making games for sets of hardware that were capable of dramatically different things.
They were capable of dramatically different things. Perhaps they also had those contracts, but Genesis couldn’t do mode 7, and the sounds that came out of the SNES were dramatically different. There were cases where a game would come out on each system under the same name but developed by two different companies with two completely different designs, because their capabilities were so different.
There were plenty of games that took advantage of one console over the other due to the very different architectures and it was a wonderful and neat thing. That said this is not really the point being made.
It was stated earlier that Sony set “the market rules” when this is untrue. Nintendo in the 80s was incredibly anti-competitive and had a very closed off ecosystem and a tight grip over developers. It wasnt even a matter of whether the game worked on one console vs another it was a matter of nintendo dominating the market and retaliating against 3rd parties that tried to work with other developers. 3rd party exclusives and first and 2nd party devs focusing on one console is somethin thats been baked into the console market since nintendo came into power in the mid 80s.
This is Nintendo erasure.
Which 3rd party exclusives are they sitting on except Bayonetta 2/3? I can’t remember that many.
Nintendo has the same dumb practices, but they do it with their own IPs, which is a little less annyoing. Also they aren’t the main player like Sony has been for the last two decades. They just own the Mario-and-Zelda-tablet.
Few today, but who set the market rules? They were set in the late 80s.
In the 80s and 90s, third party exclusives were a necessity because you were making games for sets of hardware that were capable of dramatically different things.
No no they were not and in addition to that nintendo had contracts that outright forbade developers from working on other systems period.
They were capable of dramatically different things. Perhaps they also had those contracts, but Genesis couldn’t do mode 7, and the sounds that came out of the SNES were dramatically different. There were cases where a game would come out on each system under the same name but developed by two different companies with two completely different designs, because their capabilities were so different.
There were plenty of games that took advantage of one console over the other due to the very different architectures and it was a wonderful and neat thing. That said this is not really the point being made.
It was stated earlier that Sony set “the market rules” when this is untrue. Nintendo in the 80s was incredibly anti-competitive and had a very closed off ecosystem and a tight grip over developers. It wasnt even a matter of whether the game worked on one console vs another it was a matter of nintendo dominating the market and retaliating against 3rd parties that tried to work with other developers. 3rd party exclusives and first and 2nd party devs focusing on one console is somethin thats been baked into the console market since nintendo came into power in the mid 80s.
How do you come up with this shit?
Where did I lose you? Have you never played a game on a console from the 80s or 90s?