Not as much as you think. There's a reason the SNES/PS1/PS2/Wii won their respective generations, and it sure as hell was their graphics.
Why would they do that? They can just keep selling it with profit even if the sales are very low. Same with WiiU, sales are low and the 3rd party support is dismal so far, but i dont think Nintendo will discontunie the WiiU in two years.
The post he was replying, aside from GTA, only mentioned 1st party titles too.
If they weren't going to publish it now, why next gen, when costs would be even higher? The game was dead, it wouldn't be alive if Nintendo hadn't of stepped in when they did. SEGA are moving further away from retail, and Bayo didn't exactly sell too well in the first place. SEGA weren't going to do anything with it, no-one else apparently wanted to, so Nintendo did.
Baconsammy said:
I think it is because the Wii is different. It didnt follow the hardware upgrade that was usual, it sold amazing in the first years, yet it didnt recieve a lot of big 3rd party support. And finally, despite the amazing start, it has a steep decline after that. Also, for a lot of people, the Wii was not the default gaming machine like the SNES/PS1/PS2 were eventhough it sold most units. Here i'm thinking more in general, i'm sure that Gamecube and Xbox etc. was the default gaming machine for many.
I can see this, yea, but I don't see how this effects the 'winner'. If you're basing the 'winner' on which system you like/played the most, then 'winner' is subjective, which goes against the very definition of a winner. It's always been which system sold the most, the fact that the Wii was underwhelming for many shouldn't somehow effect this accepted definition. The same goes for the whole 'next gen' argument.
Generally speaking, the hardware is there to please the developers/publishers who make these series, who in return end up putting their games on the new platforms.
I think this is going to be a much harder sell to people than last gen. The difference between, say, the PS2 and PS3 was HUGE in almost every way. The jump won't be as big this time, no 480p to 720p kind of jump is available this time around. I really don't think graphics will be enough, MS has the right idea with Kinect, as do Nintendo with the controller (Even if they've not managed to show it yet). I feel a lot of people will be happy with their 360/PS3's for much longer than Sony/MS think they will.
While this is true, the harder they push, the harder it is for the rest to keep up. While I guess this is their point, to try and push their competitors out of the market. The better graphics get, the higher the baseline is, which make things harder for smaller retail developers/publishers. I can only see this getting worse as well, and I don't think it's a good direction to go in. The mid tier has all but vanished over the course of this gen, and I doubt any gamer is happy at that. It also leads to everyone chasing the 'CoD money', one example being Tomb Clancy. What was once a exploring/platforming game is now become an Uncharted clone.
It also raises an important question, do people buy consoles for COD, Fifa, Madden etc. or do people buy COD, Fifa, Madden etc because they have the console already?
I think the lack of big 3rd party support is the biggest reason why people see the winner differently. But yeah, using the most sold unit is the best objective messure.
True, but it's a huge risk. You can make, say, CoD, Durango/Orbis exclusive, but risk losing millions upon millions of potential customers by doing so. I think EA have the right idea here, take Fifa, for example. Fifa, despite being mainly a 360/PS3 game, was still being released on the PS2 for years. I can't see 3rd parties ignoring the huge audience they already have in favor for an exclusive next gen title, at least not for a good few years, especially if development costs are going to get even higher. There will be exclusives, yes, but they won't be the CoD's or the Fifa/Madden's, and these are the important titles for casuals. This doesn't apply for everything though.
Lumping the PS2 with the Wii and saying both "won" is disingenuous. They won for very different reasons, and for the PS2 it certainly was graphics in part.
It shouldnt be a problem. Xbox 360 has been in the japanese market for 7 years now despite the really low sales. One could say that it would be pointless to keep selling Xbox 360 in Japan, but it is still being sold. There will always be some stores that carries it even if you dont see it in every mainstream or bigger stores. PSP Go was also a revision somehow, then it is easier to discontunie it. It is different when it is about discontunie a whole system.
Well currently they have:
This was before COD became such a big seller though. I wonder how Activision is thinking about next generation. If they move COD exclusively over to PS4/Xbox 720/PC (and maybe WiiU too) at a very early stage, this could mean that they will lose millions of potential sales.
I agree, Sony have supported the Vita quite much so far. Many of those games are very good too in my opinion. I dont know why the "well, it is made by a smaller team (or b-team is often used)" means that Sony doesnt take the Vita seriously. The main thing that matters is if the games are good or not. Personally i dont think that i.e Uncharted Golden Abyss would have sold tons more if it was made by Naughty Dog themself.
If one insists on making comparison to tablets, it's a tethered small, low-resolution tablet device, without multitouch, with a comparably poor OS and no App store. In things that people actually want from a tablet it's most certainly inferior. That's the problem with trying to "me too" against the iOS and Android explosion.