iamnsuperman (User)

  • Contributor
  • 8 bubbles
  • 20 in CRank
  • Score: 337880



I am unsure I get what you mean. I think Nintendo will wait until Mario Kart releases to do anything about this lack of sales issue. But I think they need to do something now #1.1.2
70k is abysmal especially since its competitors are doing around that in a week. I get Nintendo may be holding out for Mario Kart but they need to do something now #1.1
Is that winning though? I would be cool to see another Star Fox game or another Metroid game but what stays in peoples minds is the complete shock announcement. Last year it was the PS4 price and Battlefront announcement, the year before that is was Watch Dogs.

Those who make the biggest impact are the most impressive shocking reveals. At this stage I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo came out and said they are developing a Star Fox game. I am hoping they really shock us.... #1.1
Like SilentNegotiator said:

I didn't say they lost. I said they lost a big market share since their previous console especially in America where the 360 sold, not quite but nearly, twice as much as the PS3. Things have now changed with the PS4 and Xbox One selling roughly the same amount but what Sony has is a huge market share in Europe #2.1.2
The point is the Dreamcast sold more in the same time period (which is a console that is synonymous for poor sales). Though a better comparison can be made with the Gamecube and the Wii U which has sold roughly the same in the same time period #2.1
" Did they check Amazon where the Titanfall CONSOLE is selling better than Infamous right now? "
Well that depends where you look. US no (non bundle PS4 is there), UK yes (I wonder if you checked Amazon)

OT: Probably not. It is an FPS after all. That tends to be the genre with the greatest legs (even more so since there aren't many FPS on next gen consoles) #1.2
I would wait till E3. I expect a price cut (possibly a new model but a price cut is more likely). If Nintendo were smart, they could make the impact of Mario Kart even greater if the took some off the asking price (makes it look like a deal) #1.1.1
Essentially its Sony because they have clawed back the market share they lost with the last generation. The US now has a small difference between the two and this is a huge victory for Sony especially since it managed to keep Europe with a healthy proportion of the market. The US (and in part the UK) were a key region for Microsoft with the 360 (in the US the 360 sold roughly double what the PS3 did) #2
Good for him but being an independent studio it is stuff like that you need to care about even if your not the head guy. I understand if you are just a cog in the large machine (other people can worry about that) but Respawn isn't like that (and there are problems if they were since your performance is all about hitting those sales targets). Their publisher probably cares a lot (since I bet they don't want another MoH, underselling than predicted wise, on their hands) #2
I must be the only one who see such a move as a little bit ridiculous. Look I know the Vita can play online but having a portable system with a game that can't be played offline seems silly.

Handheld consoles really need a good solid offline component to survive. A good competitive online mode comes second (in a way an extra). Titanfall hasn't got the first, most important, part #2.1
Well Watch Dogs was meant to release around November so it already had its pre-launch hype and pre-order influx. Hype for the game has taken a nose dive since we are in this weird period where the hype train derailed after being delayed (which could have resulted in cancellations of pre-orders). #1.1
1d 2h ago by iamnsuperman | View comment
Spiderman does not belong to Sony. Sony owns the rights to be the only ones to produce Spiderman films. That doesn't mean they own Spiderman. It is more like a lease. A lease that does not include games

edit: On the lease point, it comes with certain conditions. I think the reason why Sony rebooted Spiderman so quickly after 3 was because if they didn't they would loose the rights #7.1
1d 2h ago by iamnsuperman | View comment
What I find crazy is EA needed help with funding for the game (I know Respawn are not a part of EA but they are the game's publisher). It sounds like EA really didn't want to risk it with the new ip or the deal between Respwan and EA wasn't exactly great for Respawn (hence the point before) #2.1
1d 13h ago by iamnsuperman | View comment
The biggest issue is time. I think a game like The Last of Us needs to be a mini series like the BBC does (3 part series). A normal series is just way to long and a film is way to short. But a one off mini series would be perfect. I am not sure if it is a popular thing in the US but they work very well here in the UK #1
1d 16h ago by iamnsuperman | View comment
This guy https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Honestly Snoop Dogg is an awful choice for a voice pack (still think a voice pack is ridiculous). Lots of people would have been a better choice #3
1d 18h ago by iamnsuperman | View comment
It is a brilliant idea. It essentially takes free publicity to a whole new level. #1.1
1d 19h ago by iamnsuperman | View comment
Surely this is a given. #2
1d 21h ago by iamnsuperman | View comment
Probably why they did it now. That game (even though it was risky) was a big boost for Square Enix but is that enough for long term stability (keeping an investment). A bit too risky. #3.4.1

1. Square Enix isn't stable
2. Sony doesn't want to loose more potential money/value
3. Sony sells shares in a company whose value could drop further

I think a lot of companies would do the same regardless of financial stability. For Sony this is even more important #3.2
Basically, Sony doesn't want to risk owning shares in Square Enix. Square Enix isn't exactly stable so Sony are probably thinking sell now just in case the value drops further #6.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 332
Showing: 1 - 20 of 6636