Author
|
Topic: Paul Reiche III is linked to the Nintendo Revolution (Read 21736 times)
|
Pik
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 23
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
I doubt we'll *ever* see a Star Control 2 sequel for the PS3 or Xbox 360. Developing for those consoles takes an insane budget. To give some context, the Revolution development kit is cheaper than the PSP development kit. Also, Toys for Bob is already working on the Revolution platform. They will be very familiar with its controller and how the system works.
Paul Reiche III has said that the big obstacle for a proper Star Control 2 sequel would be obtaining the development budget. With the PS3 and Xbox 360's development costs skyrocketing (just look at what is needed for the art assets, holy cow), the sequel would appear on either the PC or Revolution. My bet would be the Revolution due to more money being in console games and that the Revolution's controller might have finally solved the riddle of Ford and Reiche creating a solid 3d space shooter.
Before any sequel though, we should petition/spam/threaten Toys for Bob (and their publishers) to put Star Control 2 on the download services of the consoles. At first, I thought SC2 would appear on Xbox Live Arcade but the XBLA titles have been released at such a low rate. And I can't imagine anyone putting in the time to tie SC2 to Xbox Live's stats with updated HD graphics.
With the PS1/PS2 download service, hopefully we will see Toys for Bob's early games like The Unholy War or The Horde available. But I don't think Sony's download service will include games for systems other than Playstation.
The most likely spot for Star Control 2 to reappear on consoles would be the Virtual Console. If the Virtual Console can include NEC and Sega consoles, why not the 3DO? I would imagine that before a SC2 sequel, the waters would be tested to see how popular SC 2 still is.
But I am just speculating. Please Toys for Bob! For the love of Juffo-Wup! After E3, please talk to us!
Don't do it for us. Don't do it for yourselves. Do it for what really matters. Do it for Frungy!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1387
|
Apparently you haven't heard about Red Steel, which is supposed to be a launch title for the Rev. Definitely not kiddie fare.
Yes, it is number one on gamespot's current top 5 (yes, there's only 5, not 10) revolution games. . .right before SpongeBob Squarepants, Smash Brothers, Metroid, and Sadness (putting it in black and white is almost as good an idea as its title.) Not a real hardcore/impressive line up, IMO.
To answer your question, I suppose my underlying dislike of the rev is the direction it has taken (lower end, lower age group) seems boring and cheesy. Also, there's the Gamecube, which was a bundle of good ideas:
1) Hey, let's for no reason make it really small so that it will be much pricier/less-powerful than it could be.
2) Instead of using standard discs, lets make these cool little expensive ones that store less / cost more / probably won't be runnable on future systems, since. . .
3) . . .we already have designed the gamecube to not run any nintendo games cartridges from older systems.
4) Lets keep our price up there with the Xbox, even though the cube is half as powerful and has no dvd support.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
Yes, it is number one on gamespot's current top 5 (yes, there's only 5, not 10) revolution games. . .right before SpongeBob Squarepants, Smash Brothers, Metroid, and Sadness (putting it in black and white is almost as good an idea as its title.) Not a real hardcore/impressive line up, IMO.
What were you expecting from a system that's still mostly vaporware? I can't think of any console that's ever laucnched with more than a dozen games or so, at least not since the NES anyway.
To answer your question, I suppose my underlying dislike of the rev is the direction it has taken (lower end, lower age group) seems boring and cheesy.
Where's this info coming from? It sounds to me like you're just repeating the old, only partially deserved stereotype that Nintendo only makes "kiddie games," which is something they're clearly trying to move away from, at least in part. While you can't expect them to abandon their huge, "kiddish" moneymakers (ie. Pokemon, Mario), I wouldn't say they're going out of their way to stymie the development of more mature themed games, and it looks more to me like they're encouraging it (and have been for some time).
Also, there's the Gamecube, which was a bundle of good ideas:
1) Hey, let's for no reason make it really small so that it will be much pricier/less-powerful than it could be.
2) Instead of using standard discs, lets make these cool little expensive ones that store less / cost more / probably won't be runnable on future systems, since. . .
3) . . .we already have designed the gamecube to not run any nintendo games cartridges from older systems.
4) Lets keep our price up there with the Xbox, even though the cube is half as powerful and has no dvd support.
Where are you shopping? The 'Cube was always less than a PS2 or X-Box. It was $100 less at launch, and even now, is about $50 less. Call me crazy, but that figured heavily into my decision to early-adopt the GCN, and pass on both of the others for a long time. I didn't get a PS2 until it came down to $150 (and I had the entire amount covered in gift cards), and I still don't have an X-Box, and likely never will.
While I'm not sure what the thought process was behind the GCN minidiscs, I have a hunch it has something to do with the fact that the GCN is the only console not currently able to be emulated, as far as I know. This has always been something near and dear to Nintendo's heart (can't make money on old games if anyone can download them for free), and it seems like the minidiscs were successful in thwarting emulation of the console.
Speaking of emulation and backward compatability, you have heard that the Rev will support games from all previous Nintendo consoles, right? This means it will be backward compatible for GCN discs, and older cart-based games will be available for download. This is pretty unprecedented, as any other backward compatible console has always just supported its previous iteration. Also, why complain about the GCN's lack of backward compatability? No previous Nintendo console has ever supported it other than the handhelds. It would have been a nice feature, but it's not strictly necessary.
One last thing; you do realize the X-Box didn't have DVD support out of the box, and required a separate add-on (sold separately, of course), right?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
What were you expecting from a system that's still mostly vaporware?
About the same as I am getting from the still mostly vaporware PS3.
Where's this info coming from? It sounds to me like you're just repeating the old, only partially deserved stereotype that Nintendo only makes "kiddie games," which is something they're clearly trying to move away from, at least in part.
Something a nintendo spokesman/exec said a while back- that the rev was not going to compete with the PS3 or Xbox 360, but instead shoot for a lower end piece of the market, along with the handhelds market.
I'm not a big handhelds fan either. I'm more of a grouch who likes full blown systems. 
Where are you shopping? The 'Cube was always less than a PS2 or X-Box. It was $100 less at launch, and even now, is about $50 less.
Are you sure? I thought it was X=$300 P=$200 and G=$300 at the launch? I could be wrong, it was a while ago.
I still don't have an X-Box, and likely never will.
You missed out, if you grabbed the Xbox at $200, that would have been the best deal. Lot's of games that blow GC games away (both graphically and gameplay wise, IMO.) I'd recommend the same strategy if you plan on getting a PS3 or X360- wait until a couple years goes by and the price drops to $200, because that's when there will be plenty of good games (many in the $20-$30 range) anyway.
While I'm not sure what the thought process was behind the GCN minidiscs, I have a hunch it has something to do with the fact that the GCN is the only console not currently able to be emulated, as far as I know.
Well, as good as it makes the customer feel that Nintendo won't have to worry about a few pirates, that still doesn't justify having to pay for a non-standard, non-mass-produced, expensive mini-CD (just like cartridges were more expensive.) I mean, as warm and fuzzy as I feel knowing people won't rip Pokemon Diaper Changer, it doesn't do anything for me, so why should I pay the extra price, for less game?
This means it will be backward compatible for GCN discs, and older cart-based games will be available for download.
Available for download for free, right? Or do you just get the amazing opportunity to re-buy what you've already bought?
One last thing; you do realize the X-Box didn't have DVD support out of the box, and required a separate add-on (sold separately, of course), right?
Yea, I remember. It was $30 which was not much given the price of DVD players back then, but I think they could have just had the changer come with the system, for free (how much can a changer cost.) Though they were already making the XBs at a loss early on.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
TiLT
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 260
To boldly go where no Spathi has dared go before
|
Worst. Naming decision. EVER!
Something as simple as the new name could be the death of Nintendo's new console.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
What were you expecting from a system that's still mostly vaporware? About the same as I am getting from the still mostly vaporware PS3.
I can't say I've seen much to get excited about over in that camp.
Something a nintendo spokesman/exec said a while back- that the rev was not going to compete with the PS3 or Xbox 360, but instead shoot for a lower end piece of the market, along with the handhelds market. I'm not a big handhelds fan either. I'm more of a grouch who likes full blown systems.
I admit, I'm not much of a fan of handhelds as well, but some of the GBA games really are very much worth playing (and tend to be much more affordable than games for the main consoles). You can imagine how pleased I was when I got a GBA player for my 'Cube, then. 
And I wouldn't take too much of what was said in the vapor stages too seriously; they're going to have to compete with the competition, whether they like it or not. That's sort of a no-brainer...
Are you sure? I thought it was X=$300 P=$200 and G=$300 at the launch? I could be wrong, it was a while ago.
You have the prices of the GCN and PS2 mixed up. I got my 'Cube shortly after the release of Smash Bros. Melee (which was shortly after launch), and it cost me $200. The PS2 was still running at $300, because they didn't see any need to lower their prices until after their competition was launched and started taking a bite out of their market share, which hadn't registered with them yet.
I still don't have an X-Box, and likely never will. You missed out, if you grabbed the Xbox at $200, that would have been the best deal. Lot's of games that blow GC games away (both graphically and gameplay wise, IMO.) I'd recommend the same strategy if you plan on getting a PS3 or X360- wait until a couple years goes by and the price drops to $200, because that's when there will be plenty of good games (many in the $20-$30 range) anyway.
See, that's the funny thing: I don't feel like I'm missing anything bgy not owning an X-Box. Anything I would want for it, I can get on either another console or the PC. So why bother? Also, a machine that stakes its life on a library of mainly FPSes and sports games really doesn't have much that appeals to me in the first place... Cap that off with the obsession over graphics above anything else, and I've lost interest entirely. Not to mention that I just can't get used to that F'ing controller. 
Well, as good as it makes the customer feel that Nintendo won't have to worry about a few pirates, that still doesn't justify having to pay for a non-standard, non-mass-produced, expensive mini-CD (just like cartridges were more expensive.) I mean, as warm and fuzzy as I feel knowing people won't rip Pokemon Diaper Changer, it doesn't do anything for me, so why should I pay the extra price, for less game?
I didn't mean to imply that it was something that helps the consumer, just that it was likely their justification. On the other hand, I don't see where the "less game" argument is coming from; nearly everything that comes out for all 3 consoles is pretty comparable on each, and one could easily make the "less game" argument for the PS2 version, since the technology is a year behind the other two and is more crude by necessity. Realistically, though, you're getting the same game in every instance.
This means it will be backward compatible for GCN discs, and older cart-based games will be available for download. Available for download for free, right? Or do you just get the amazing opportunity to re-buy what you've already bought?
The verdict is still out on that one, actually. Nintendo has been understandably quiet about their pricing plan in this regard.
Yea, I remember. It was $30 which was not much given the price of DVD players back then, but I think they could have just had the changer come with the system, for free (how much can a changer cost.) Though they were already making the XBs at a loss early on.
The point being, for $300 then, or even $200 or $150 now, I would expect more for my money. You would be better served getting a PS2 for the same price (since both companies have been pretty much evenly priced throughout) and having that DVD functionality out of the box, if that's what you're after. The whole "pimp my system" mentality is a blight on the industry, as far as I'm concerned, and doesn't bode well for the consumer if it keeps up in the long run.
And I just saw that thing on renaming the system. Why do they want to make me cry? The Rev was a great name. Now it just sounds like piss, literally. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Revolution? What's that??
Oh! You mean the thing that used to be called Revolution, but is now called Wii?
>_<
Hehe, they've turned into apple. Good bye market share.
Also, a machine that stakes its life on a library of mainly FPSes and sports games really doesn't have much that appeals to me in the first place...
That was the case early on, but if you bought in two years after the release of the Xbox, like I mentioned before, you'd have the best system available. Then there were some interesting games.
Cap that off with the obsession over graphics above anything else, and I've lost interest entirely. Not to mention that I just can't get used to that F'ing controller.
The graphics obsession dwells within the entire gaming industry, leave alone the entire console sub-industry. The first controller was good, as it was the first that was actually big enough to be comfortable for an adult. Some button spacing could be reduced though. I never used a sega, but I think the dreamcast's controllers used a very similar layout.
On the other hand, I don't see where the "less game" argument is coming from
Less size means (in the computer world) you either get less out of it or you have to pay more for it. This was a problem with gamecube as a whole, they made it small. Most people can more easily spare an extra cubic foot over a $100, for a machine of approximately equal power. Sony made the same dumb mistake by making the PS2 half as tall (or wide, depending on how you stand it.) Don't make it half as big, make it half as much $$$ ! ! !
The verdict is still out on that one, actually. Nintendo has been understandably quiet about their pricing plan in this regard.
This would be cool if they allowed you to at LEAST freely download the games you already bought on older systems. If not, then this is just a way of squeezing more money out of their fanboys.
Just as a side not, I think the N64 had an advantage over the PS1, despite the inferior cartridges and controllers. N64 had four controller ports standard, less unholy masses of side scrollers and scaled down PC ports, and just a better feel to its games most of the time. Before that, it always seemed to have an edge over Sega. But with the development of the abomination that is the Gamecube, and the entrance of Microsoft into the competition, I think the company has passed by its golden age and will be passing on in a console generation or two.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Culture20
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 917
Thraddash Flower Child
|
Having finally purchased my first console, I can say that Nintendo still has one market: Adults with young children. Other than PCs, there aren't very many platforms with games that grown ups enjoy and can happily play _with_ their children (sometimes just with their children in the same room).
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
That was the case early on, but if you bought in two years after the release of the Xbox, like I mentioned before, you'd have the best system available. Then there were some interesting games.
I don't see the logic in this argument. Even today, I still see nothing that would compel me to buy an X-Box. How would looking at the console at some point in its past help matters any?
It generally takes one or two standout titles to motivate me to buy a console, because I'm actually pretty reluctant to buy expensive hardware and software. For the 'Cube, that title was unquestioably Smash Bros. Melee. For the PS2, it was Katamari Damacy and the Nippon Ichi strategy games. You'll note that all of those are console exclusive to their respective machines. Extend that to the X-Box, and there's only one title that really stands out: KOTOR. And when that came out for the PC, I just didn't see the point anymore.
The graphics obsession dwells within the entire gaming industry, leave alone the entire console sub-industry. The first controller was good, as it was the first that was actually big enough to be comfortable for an adult. Some button spacing could be reduced though. I never used a sega, but I think the dreamcast's controllers used a very similar layout.
I know that there are a great many developers for all platforms that value flash over substance. Problem is, that seems to be all the X-Box has going for it. The 360 is a case in point, really; I can't think of anything actually worth playing for the thing, but it certainly does look pretty on the screen.
I was never much of a fan of the Dreamcast controller. It always felt unnecessarily large, but at least in that case, it had to be that big to allow the attachment of the VMU. However, there's no reason why the X-Box controller needs to be that large. All the space that was dedicated to the VMU in the Dreamcast model is just taken up by a big stupid logo on the X-Box version. Explain why that's a necessary function of the controller, please. To cap it off, I despise the button configuration on it as well. I much prefer the double trigger design used by Nintendo and Sony, over adding extra buttons to the face of the controller. It's hard enough trying to find the button I actually want to press as is, I don't need more (untextured) nubs to throw me off.
And I have no idea how you can reasonably defend the size of that thing. I've got big hands and long fingers (bad enough that I can't confortably use a GBA SP without feeling like I'm scrunching up), and I STILL find the damn thing unwieldy.
Less size means (in the computer world) you either get less out of it or you have to pay more for it. This was a problem with gamecube as a whole, they made it small. Most people can more easily spare an extra cubic foot over a $100, for a machine of approximately equal power. Sony made the same dumb mistake by making the PS2 half as tall (or wide, depending on how you stand it.) Don't make it half as big, make it half as much $$$ ! ! !
I shouldn't need to mention that this isn't the computer world, and consoles are an entirely different beast. As said, games for all three are generally pretty comparable. There are a few exceptions, sure, but they serve to prove the rule.
While I can't argue with the desire to have the PS2 cost less, I have to say I like the design of the "Slimstation." It mostly has a lot to do with the pop-top CD drive instead of the computer style motorized drawer; fewer moving parts means that there's less to break, and those drawers are a bit notorious for doing so. On the other hand, it drives me crazy that it can't support certain periperals that the full-size model can, and that the Sony spokespeople have the arrogance to write off anyone who complains about that as not being "hardcore" enough for them to care about. Also, a redesign of a current gen console has historically meant that it has one foot in the grave. The PS2 still seems to be OK in that regard, but we'll see.
Just as a side not, I think the N64 had an advantage over the PS1, despite the inferior cartridges and controllers. N64 had four controller ports standard, less unholy masses of side scrollers and scaled down PC ports, and just a better feel to its games most of the time. Before that, it always seemed to have an edge over Sega. But with the development of the abomination that is the Gamecube, and the entrance of Microsoft into the competition, I think the company has passed by its golden age and will be passing on in a console generation or two.
Actually, I thought the N64 was the superior console as well. The library was a huge factor; the PS1 seemed to have only a small number of gems mired in a wasteland of crap, while the N64 had a much smaller library, but 90% of it was gold. And I don't think I need to mention that I think the SNES was probably the greatest console ever, just on the merits of its library alone.
Nintendo made a grave strategic mistake with the 'Cube, I must admit. Every console before it that they put out had something unique that made it stand out and shine above the rest: The N64 introduced analog controllers, the SNES had extremely impressive sound and visual effects, as well as a huge amount of buttons packed on the controller for the time (8!). The 'Cube was just a blatant attempt to follow the trends, and therefore the money they thought they were losing. There was nothing new or unique about it, and it was quickly overshadowed by the competition since Sony had the larger library and Microsoft had the more powerful machine. I think this is why they claim they're "not trying to compete" with the competition; they're striking out in a completely different direction in true Nintendo style, and they'll wait and see what happens. Every other time they've done it, it's taken the competition a year or more to catch up with their innovations (if they ever caught up at all). Time will tell if they can get back into a leading position again, but the machine-formerly-known-as-the-Revolution certainly seems like a promising vehicle for it... If they rethink that name, anyway. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
I don't see the logic in this argument. Even today, I still see nothing that would compel me to buy an X-Box.
For the 'Cube, that title was unquestioably Smash Bros. Melee.
Halo 1+2, Crimson Skies, Battlefront 1+2, Blood Wake, Metal Arms, etc., were good games. I don't see what would make them inferiors to Smash Bros. Maybe if the Covenant replaced its grunts with pikachus. . .
Extend that to the X-Box, and there's only one title that really stands out: KOTOR. And when that came out for the PC, I just didn't see the point anymore.
In KOTOR, your sith powers are greatly stronger when you play on microsoft hardware.
Seriously, not all gamers can afford to ditch thousands of dollars in keeping up with PC hardware, if that PC does not pull its weight in other areas. So, they buy a machine that runs games for one, a couple or a few hundred dollars.
And I have no idea how you can reasonably defend the size of that thing. I've got big hands and long fingers (bad enough that I can't confortably use a GBA SP without feeling like I'm scrunching up), and I STILL find the damn thing unwieldy.
I don't like to have to scrunch (is this even a word?) in around a little controller. If possible, I'd like my hands to be at shoulder width, like when riding a bicycle, driving a car, or using a computer keyboard to play a game. The Problem with the XBox controller is that it is too long (buttons need to be closer to the sticks.) But the width is good.
I shouldn't need to mention that this isn't the computer world, and consoles are an entirely different beast.
Not in this respect, a smaller chip is still a pricier chip.
While I can't argue with the desire to have the PS2 cost less, I have to say I like the design of the "Slimstation."
Yes, and I'd like it if it could be used as a personal jet pack and come stuffed with a million dollars, but I wouldn't want to have to pay a lot extra for these things. Price and Power are what I want from the machine. Size is a distant second, if you don't live in Japan.
I think this is why they claim they're "not trying to compete" with the competition; they're striking out in a completely different direction in true Nintendo style, and they'll wait and see what happens. Every other time they've done it, it's taken the competition a year or more to catch up with their innovations (if they ever caught up at all).
I used to say the same sorts of things about Macs. But it was all propaganda-lies that they fed to us! We were never a match for Microsoft. And now it is coming for you. Run. Run while you still can. RUN!!!
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 29, 2006, 04:51:06 am by Deus_Siddis »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
NamelessPlayer
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 104
|
I'll probably buy the Wi-er, console-that-was-called-Revolution ASAP, and having some Star Control goodness would only sweeten the deal. I just need to enlighten more people of SC's awesomeness with UQM-I can't be the newest person to experience it! Everyone must know about Frungy! Everyone must know about Fwiffo!
As far as the current-generation consoles, I got my GCN as a Christmas present on launch, with SSBM and some other game. Unfortunately, the library's grown quite stale.
As for my Xbox, which I didn't purchase until a few months ago...I could care less about Halo since both games are either on or are coming to PC anyway, but Steel Battalion: Line of Contact is unquestionably addictive. You'll have to bear with the stiff competition and learning curve initially, though. The only problem I have with the thing is that it's a 1.6 and therefore screws up my Panzer Dragoon Orta image in 480p mode.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
Er, I don't want to try to decipher the garbled-quote mess up there, so...
Let's just say, I played KOTOR on a friend's PC, liked it a bit, but couldn't get into it much. Both Halos SUCKED (dons flame-retardant suit); I'd sooner play any Timesplitters game (which, incidentally, are available on all 3 machines). Of the rest of the games you mentioned, none even piqued my interest for more than a moment.
Now, just incase you wanted a counter-list for the 'Cube: Wind Waker, the Lost Kingdoms games, Baten Kaitos, Paper Mario: the Thousand Year Door, Metroid Prime 1 & 2, etc. Plus the all-important GBA player mentioned above.
I grew up with an Atari joystick in my hands. I graduated fairly quickly to an NES controller, and then an SNES controller. I liked the design of the N64's controller much more than the PS1's (which was the first non-Nintendo system I ever owned since the 2600, and only because I got a friend's old one for ~$20). Out of the current gen, I prefer the GCN's controller to the other two. I think you have a good idea what sort of device I'm most comfortable with: It's got all the buttons in logical places, the controls where I would expect to be putting down my left thumb, and doesn't dig into or cramp up my hands. I've used the X-Box controller on several occasions. Every time, I find myself fumbling for buttons I can't seem to find (especially those extra 2 down at the bottom of the face), and having to put the thing down because it's cramping my hands after a while. It doesn't work for me.
Incidentally, I've never been all that comfortable using a keyboard to control games... Then again, I despise keyboard + mouse control for those FPS games even more. I tolerate the keyboard alone, and only play console FPSes. From what I've played on the PC, I'm convinced I'm not missing anything.
I don't see how you're paying extra for a "Slimstation" vs. an old-style PS2. The price didn't go down any, and even without the redesign, I can't imagine that would have changed. The machine is priced where the market will bear it, redesign or no. On the other hand, I certainly wouldn't complain if it came packaged with a personal jetpack and a million bucks.
I'm not saying Nintendo's "non-competition" statement is accurate. That's just the spin that I can see being placed on it, not that I'm buying into it. I just see that machine as having the greatest potential of the three, at least from what they're saying about it now. My impressions are sure to change by launch, for better or for worse, but only time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
Er, I don't want to try to decipher the garbled-quote mess up there, so...
Sorry, I usually check over my posts to clear up these sorts of issues.
My impressions are sure to change by launch, for better or for worse, but only time will tell.
My great psychic prediction is that Nintendo will die out in the same fashion as Sega did in the generation after wii or the generation after that. It will still produce its classic software titles (mario this, pokemon that) but it will lose its console in the long run. Sony and Microsoft will battle it out for a long time to come, but in the end, Bill's juggernaut will steamroller Sony out of the console market. Unless something happens like a devastating bird flu mutation, or economic collapse in the USA, Japan getting overrun by China, or Gates getting secretly replaced by a sony infiltration cyborg. I base this on two things- Sony and Nintendo have displayed more erring strategies of late, and Microsoft always wins.
BTW, Halo will be a lot better if they add a lot more vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
