why not? Coz they'd lose out on billions of dollars not making hardware? How can you honestly say that would be good for anyone other than yourself? The countless people who would lose their Nintendo jobs, the smaller amount of Nintendo games we'd get, etc?
Basically all the reasons it would benefit you and not benefit Nintendo?
I need this game! Sunday, here I come!
While there is plenty I don't like about the Xbox One, none of what you said is true except the 24 hour check in for used games.
I hope it doesn't have a similar situation like the RRoD with overheating. Half the darn console is a vent!
Everyone reporting this clearly aren't reading the article. One paragraph in it has the entire quote by Keighley. Everyone keeps acting like that quote doesn't exist.
Keighley says:
“Sony I think is, you know sort of seen as a white knight so far that is not going to restrict used games. Based on some of the things I’m hearing I don’t think that’s entirely true. I can’t see publishers allowing one to do one thing or the other. The bigger question is ...
Its an industry person with connections who has teased things in the past that have come true. It is totally allowed, its not like this is some forum nobody, its Geoff Keighley going on record saying he's "heard things". Maybe what he's heard isn't even that bad.
No, that isn't the rules. The rules don't say "unless an industry person passes X amount of hoops to be approved". Besides, Keighley easily outweighs most other sites that get...
Sunshine or Galaxy 2 on 3DS in a few years (after 3D Land 2) and a brand new Mario on Wii U
Dude, that's Two Tribes. This is Shin'en Multimedia. Two different developers.
They appear to have done the same thing with Star Fox, remains to be seen if it passed the test.
it helps. it lowers the bar spec wise for ports (since devs will be porting down from X1's 5GB game ram not ps4's 7GB) also, this thing will tank with always online, an odd used game scheme and high price. $500 Xbox One vs $249-$299 Wii U, it will be like Wii where a good amount of consumers opt for the cheaper option.
I sincerely doubt it would $99 in two years, four or five maybe
Of course they are but we won't see it for 5 years or so. This is a sensationalist headline by the writer for clicks. I can't blame him/her, but still.
Ok cool dude but I don't understand how any of what you said relates to the Wii U being comparable to the DC.
Considering it already sold half of what the DC sold in barely six months, has better third party support from Ubisoft/Capcom/Namco/Sega (ironically) and Nintendo has $10 billion in cash whereas Sega was in massive debt as they launched the DC, no.
This comparison needs to stop ASAP. Oh, wow both didn't get EA games. Similarities stop there for the most part.
Nintendo would lose all confidence consumers have in them if they brought out a new console now. This isn't even remotely a viable solution to their problems. They've got tons of money so if the Wii U does so-so for 4-6 years it will be fine.
Sega did this same thing in the 90's, changing their hardware to 1-up their competitors and look where it got them. Releasing a new console to replace Wii U so soon would destroy Nintendo home consoles.
It says nothing about playing "All" PS4 games. It says "your favorite".
Thank you for exposing me to that knowledge. Thanks for checking out the article.
Did the writer even hear that Activision and Starbreeze aren't showing off the Wii U versions of COD Ghosts and Wolfenstein because "we're not talking about the next-gen version, stay tuned" at all? While the Wii U won't be as powerful, it isn't as big a gap as Wii and it has a lot more functions and abilities than Wii did, with abilities developers need.
Not to mention Ubisoft saying they're focusing on the "Next gen" versions of Watc...
Have your "voice stripped from you"? Oh lawd this is taking internet comments from fans of a product way, way too seriously. It's like those people who compare everything to a terrible regime at a point in history (various regimes, that is)