good online infrastructure may = better online experience, but having achievements does nothing to make online infrastructure better. Also I am very critical of nintendos online, it hurts them a lot, but achievements once again are nothing more than a distraction in that area. If you actually read ANY of my comment you would realize I am not arguing against online, im not even saying that achievements would hurt gaming. Im saying their is no incentive to include it for Nintendo because it won't make them any more money. Adding achievements does not magically make online better, it takes an effort separate from anything else to make achievements (albeit a small effort) and theres no reason a company would want to do it. Besides, how are you going to talk about "mindless assumptions and then throw down the "Nintendo fanboy" bull. Who says I am a Nintendo fanboy? I like some of their games, I think they have a good developing staff, and I think that their company is good. I also like 360 games and happen to be playing borderlands. I think in many ways the 360 is far superior. But enough about that. I'd keep buying games as long as their good and achievements really won't make a game bad or good. I actually prefer to play with my friends in the room but i will agree it is far superior to be able to play online because you can do it any time. I'd rather have the option of both Also, how are you going to talk about proportionality with shovelware when you don't have any numbers and are pretty much just guessing. The way to look at this is imagine you are a developer who wants to make a quick cash-in with low development costs. The 360 costs more to develop for and has less chance of someone picking up your game (both because of the casual base on the wii and because the 360 has sold far less). The wii has a small developing costs, a casual base and currently the stigma of having shovelware being very sellable on the wii. Its a no brainer. As a result any marginally intelligent developer will make their shovelware for the wii. I hope that you see past your previous assumptions in your post and that you don't go and tell me to Prove to you my idiocy.young80s
Just so you know... I didn't post numbers because 'shovelware' is subjective. But for your information, I DID look up numbers and they're quite depressing... I'll post them if you want.
*sighs* I love it when people say 'If you actually read my post...' Right back at you. I never said you were arguing against online, infact I addressed your issue of sales. If you actually read any of my comment, that's what it was about. :roll:
Having an achievement system DOES require a good online infrastructure - or atleast better than what Nintendo has to offer. An achievement system means that you can look at the achievements of others on leaderboards and view their gaming history on their gamertag (or whatever the console uses) to check out the achievements they have acquired on different games. Nintendo can't do this because of their crap online infrastructure that requires friend codes to do anything. An online achievement system means that Nintendo would have to DITCH the friendcodes and employ a more truly online-play-against-randoms infrastructure. If anyone's played online, they will most probably agree that playing against randoms and shooting them in the face is fun. You can't do that to randoms when you need to acquire friend codes in order to play with them.
So here was my point.. that you missed. An achievement system means Nintendo needs to improve their online infrastructure. Improved online infrastructure means that Nintendo *will* have better online capabilities. Better online capabilities = increased sales.
How do I know this? Well, at the moment Nintendo has lost potential sales from me because I'm unimpressed with their online infrastructure. Had Nintendo had better online infrastructure I'd be more inclined to buy their games. Crap online = less sales. Good online = more sales.
My evidence is myself. So either, I'm right about good online infrastructure increasing sales... or you're talking to a figment of your imagination. Take your pick.
I argue from a sales standpoint because its the only one that matters when you are considering whether it will happen or not. I answered the original question but here it is again, I do not think that achievements add or subtract from games so I don't care if they add it or not. I am just pointing out that no one here has claimed to play games based on whether they have achievements or not so it can't be that big a deal. This is important because you and a couple others are making it sound like one while claiming that people don't buy games for the achievements enough to make a difference. If your claim is true, why is this a failing of Nintendo? Their job is to sell. If something doesn't sell more, why do it? You can argue that they have disappointed you a little but clearly it hasn't made any real difference and wouldn't make any real difference if they have achievements or notyoung80s
So arguing from a sales standpoint aye?What you fail to understand is that adding achievements will not stop people buying a game, but it WILL encourage others who would otherwise NOT have bought a game, to buy a game. Once again, my evidence is myself... so either I'm right or you're talking to a figment of your imagination.Just to make it more clear... I'm not arguing that achievements in themselves will greatly increase sales, but rather the infrastructure required to have an achievement system will increase sales.
Log in to comment