Also, the main reason why lots of third-parties jumped on the first Playstation was because Sony not only made a competent hardware, but because they asked a lower cut of the game's royalties than SEGA and Nintendo asked. They knew they needed a very strong third-party support because, unlike SEGA and Nintendo, they couldn't count on the first-party development. They were no software powerhouse.
@dre256x You got your history wrong. I won't comment on everything, but I just couldn't let that mistake pass:
Sony and Nintendo partnership for making a CD add-on had nothing to do with N64. Back in the 4th generation CD technology wasn't yet the standard, but the two Nintendo main competitors (SEGA globaly, and NEC on Japan) already offered CD add-ons for their consoles. CDs had the problem of slow loading times, but were cheaper to produce, offered more space and allowed for "CD-quality" soundtracks. So Nintendo considered making an add-on for SNES, much like SEGA CD. Nintendo asked Sony to develop the tech for them, since Sony had experience with CD readers, but Sony wanted not only the profits for the add-on sale, they asked for a cut of every CD game sold, they wanted part of the royalties. Nintendo firmly opposed that, seeing how the competitor's add-ons weren't doing so well, called of the partnership. Sony then took the already developed technology and used it to help the making of the first playstation, which was launched a few years before the N64.
@Dumper1 @yavix Particularly, I just can't stand the idea of wasting 150 hours on a single game. I'd prefer to experience five different 30 hours games instead. More variety.
@torreth1 Knowing that it's not unusual for cooks to pick quality ingredients is the entire reason of why I wrote "The cook isn't interested if the guy picked the right food for the chickens, he's just butthurt no one asked him.".
Don't read what Bethesda didn't say, don't equal their opinion of Wii U with your opinion. Remember: this discussion isn't about you, it's about Bethesda. They clearly said "They involved us very early on [...] to hear what we thought", as a reason for making games for Xbox One and PS4 and not for Wii U, they didn't say "we prefer to work with the more powerful consoles", so they're not complaining about Wii U power, they're complaining about not being involved on it's development.
@torreth1 @empiricaltony89 You forgot that Nintendo create games, thus already having that insight.
What is wrong is the level of presumptuousness and entitlement. The guy is outright saying that they won't make games for Nintendo because Nintendo don't allow them to meddle in the console development.
And since you've put waiters, diners and chickens on the comparison: what Bethesda is doing is akin to a cook saying he won't buy chickens from a guy because the guy who raises the chicken never asked the cook what he should feed the chickens. The cook isn't interested if the guy picked the right food for the chickens, he's just butthurt no one asked him.
@BradBurns I don't know how someone can say the Wii U is on the same power-wise level with consoles that only have 25% of it's RAM. And yes, RAM isn't everything, but if you take a look about the other hardware aspects, you'll see that repeating that saying "Wii U is basically on par with PS3 and Xbox 360, power-wise" is just a common and widespread misconception.
@BarbRayLegend Take a look at Wii, DS and 3DS. Look at their game library, you'll see that what you wrote here is just a widespread misconception: there's plenty of third-party games for those consoles. What they lack are a bigger slice of the multiplatform third-party games, but that only means they also have more exclusives than the competitors.
"They involved us very early on [...] to hear what we thought".
Meaning they want the console makers to ask their opinion of the planned console. That says that Bethesda isn't only interested in knowing about the console, they want to influence it's development.
snxx's comments