They have never said "you never need to connect your system to the Internet." All they've said is the same thing Microsoft has said: "You can play offline."
I get the impression that there's pressure coming from big publishers, and both Sony and MS are going into this believing there's not much to lose if the competition is doing it, too.
And, of course, the competition (PC/Steam) is ALREADY doing it.
TBH, I walked into a GameStop with 5 games and walked out with StarCraft II: HotS, $5 down on three games, and a renewed membership. It cost me something like $0.60. I think I bought those games (that I traded in) combined for about $80-90. So it's not that bad.
Then again, I'm SUPER choosy about what I buy in the first place.
Microsoft: "We have a solution to the used games problem"
Sony: "We have an answer to the pre-owned question"
Nintendo: "We have no features that discourage used games"
PS4 isn't positioning itself as an "all-in-one" PlayStation.
Even then, they've confirmed that the aim of Gaikai is to make all PlayStation games worth playing available someday.
Microsoft, on the other hand, says "backward compatibility is backwards."
The "all-in-one" Xbox
can't play 360 games.
Just like they want PS Vita over 3DS, amirite?
Xbox 360 2nd quarter cumulative sales: 3.2 million
Wii U 2nd quarter cumulative sales: 3.45 million
3DS 2nd quarter sales (Americas): 110,000
Wii U 2nd quarter sales (Americas): 200,000
PS Vita seven month sales: 790,633
Wii U five month sales: 3.45 million
1) "Nintendo has already said they arnt trying to compete with Sony and Microsoft - and for that, they've already lost key publishers."
How many of those "key publishers" mattered on Wii? How about NES? That's what I thought. EA sat out basically all of the NES's life. Their absence was irrelevant to NES's success.
2) "They refuse to lower the price of the Wii U - which is looking like an increasingly worse deal, as wh...
Note the double standards: Wii U has done better than 3 out of the 5 other launches in the last ten years, yet gets more flak than any of those systems.
Depends. Call of Duty has pumped out more titles which have managed to maintain a growing fanbase.
But the biggest Mario games have managed to demonstrate virtually unstoppable longevity, without having to spend tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars annually to sustain them.
Please direct me to the article that has the same message as this one. I'd love to read it.
Nah, they don't sell highest at launch. Maybe during the first year, but they usually plateau in the third or fourth year.
Eh, a new Sonic announcement isn't an "ace up their sleeve." If it really were the "next three Sonic platformers" that were exclusive, that'd be one thing, but it seems like "one Sonic platformer and two spin-offs" which isn't really all that special (even Wii got that).
I think people forget that Wii U STILL has sold more units in the first six months (at least in the Americas) than PS3 did, despite a much, much worse economy and despite a massive monthly drop off after launch.
But they can't "continue at this rate." "At this rate" they'd probably make it to 20 million, not 60 million. Luckily, they're in similar shape to the 3DS in terms of current momentum, and it looks like things will pick up with about th...
Well, "not enough games" is why it's not selling to "core Nintendo fans" (who need to be distinguished from "hardcore gamers"). Even without "enough games," it could still have a megaton seller or two if it were targeted correctly.
That's just it: most of the really awesome promises, outside of the Share button, don't seem to be coming anytime close to launch.
"Await" can mean "to be in store."
The thing about "Greatness Awaits" is that it always implies greatness is in the future.
It's satire, in case you couldn't tell!
If this explains why obvious courses like Green Hill were avoided for Sonic & All-Stars Racing, I'd be very impressed. Would love to see a racing game featuring Sonic that doesn't spread itself too thin across multiple franchises.