Third party companies should be renamed to PC game companies because that is what they are. They are whiny little companies who believe they are entitled to hardware subsidization.
Think about it. PC game companies have always been subsidized on the hardware. When you look over the past couple of decades, PC hardware companies competed fiercely against each other. Many of them went out of business such as Compaq.
The PC hardware companies weren’t making that much money. So who profited from this?
Microsoft. Microsoft’s OS from DOS to Windows was on every PC clone. It didn’t matter which hardware manufacturer won because Microsoft was always the victor.
There was another victor as well: PC game companies. Their software ran on anything that had DOS or Windows. PC game companies, by their nature, believe they are ENTITLED to hardware subsidization.
Gabe Newell correctly noted that Microsoft’s Windows 8 move is something PC game companies should have expected for a long time because they were performing their business in their business. So Gabe Newell is exploring the possibilities of making his own hardware or going Linux as subsidization means you don’t get to make the rules.
I always wondered why the two biggest gaming miracles to occur in this industry: the NES and the Wii were entirely ignored by the Game Industry both currently and retroactively. To this day, you will not find people in the Game Industry talk about the sheer phenomenon of the NES or Wii. Why?
PC game companies were not responsible for the NES or even Wii’s success. Third parties, especially the PC game companies, hitched a ride to the NES late in its lifecycle. Yamauchi correctly said, “Nintendo believes in the market… our market.”
Omitting Sega and their bizarre implosion, every console company has had one thing in common: subsidizing the hardware. The massive losses early on are hopefully to bring back some profit half a decade later. Maybe. But if you did profit all the time, the hardware would significantly less powerful.
The question is not, “When are the third parties going to support this or that platform?” The question really is, “When are we going to stop assuming the PC game companies are entitled to subsidized hardware?”
Think of Apple who sell their hardware for a profit. Do you see PC game companies embrace the Mac? Of course not. Mac hardware is not subsidized.
Think of the Nintendo consoles compared to PC hardware in their time frame. One reader expressed surprise that a 1990 NES game called Ultima IV was released half a decade ago on the PC. This was normal. The NES got ports of PC games that were five to six years old at the time.
The SNES got the same thing. Remember Doom on it? Yeah.
The N64 got the same thing as well. Doom 64 actually worked decently as a port. But by then, Doom was five to six years old.
Gamecube had the same situation as did the Wii.
Now with the Wii U, there is shock and dismay that the Wii U has PC game ports that came out five to six years ago on the PC (or a dumbed down PC machine called the Xbox 360 or PS3).
I’m telling you this is all very normal and extremely consistent with Nintendo’s track record. In order to put out hardware like a modern PC, the Wii U would be much more expensive and much, much less profitable (Wii U isn’t profitable now).
PC game companies are actually saying, “We expect console companies to engage at the high risk business of console hardware without being interested in the profit.” No wonder Yamauchi gave these guys the middle finger.
Nintendo’s biggest issue isn’t that the hardware is behind PC machines by half a decade. That’s been going on for 30 years with every single Nintendo console made. It’s old news. The big issue is Nintendo’s online especially concerning ownership of digital games. There is no true account system which means no one is going to buy digital third party games.
When are we going to stop assuming PC game companies are entitled to subsidized hardware?
Malstrom's Articles News 