Logically anyone who is invested enough in gaming to pick a side, is invested enough to care about gaming in general. So with that type of an investment why even bother exclusively picking a side? If you are open-minded and accepting, chances are you will find a greater amount of things to like across all platforms and genres.
By cutting a game, genre, or system out of your repertoire just for the sake of being on a side is cutting off your nose to spite your face. You can continue to have a preference for something (that is a normal human trait) while still enjoying things outside of your preference. That doesn't make you a traitor, it makes you logical.
Of course this is a Nintendo driven website, so the preference of most readers of the site is Nintendo. However, as fans of Nintendo, it's ok to experience non-Nintendo systems and games and still be a fan of Nintendo. It is frustrating for me to read comments on a wide variety of sites where every discussion devolves into console wars, or franchise wars, or genre wars. It's foolish nonsense and it is closed-mindedness.
Fanboyism can be an easy trap to fall into, but remember its only hurting one person, and that's you.
Fanboyism certainly isn't a problem here.
I wonder what prompted this blog poast.
Sony and Microsoft are multi-billion dollar electronics companies that honestly don't care (that much) about the video game industry.
Nintendo has said before (and I honestly agree) that these big, multi-million dollar games are going to put the industry as a whole in jeopardy. When a game needs to sell millions of copies before it breaks even the majority of games lose money. The games that do sell are going to spawn countless sequels and imitators that will eventually lead to a stagnant industry.
Last time I checked, Nintendo was also a multi-billion dollar electronics company.
QuoteLast time I checked, Nintendo was also a multi-billion dollar electronics company.
Seriously it was pretty clear what he meant MS and Sony are HUGE and diverse. To them the gaming division is just one of their many departments, unlike Nintendo where gaming IS their business. MS is into the gaming business to get its tendrils into another market and Sony is the same way. Both companies more than likely would survive without gaming, unlike Nintendo who IS gaming first and foremost.
Basically:
1. MS and Sony see gaming as A business
2. Nintendo gaming IS their business
The fact that Sony and Microsoft have other divisions doesn't mean anything. It's not like the corporate policies of either one of those companies are funneling money away from their gaming divisions to focus on making Widgets and Doo-dads, or that they're making are somehow "soulless" when compared to Nintendo's apparent vessels of gaming Ambrosia. Heck, in some cases the gaming division is the only profitable division in either company, so you can bet they're getting huge support from above. Furthermore, you can't tell me that the people that work in the Sony and Microsoft gaming divisions aren't just as dedicated and passionate about the game industry as anybody at Nintendo. You can't make the games that those companies make for the consoles and not be incredibly passionate about the industry.
Gaming is Nintendo's business...nowadays. They were originally making Hanafuda cards, but then starting making video games because they saw the money in it. Hmmm, entering the video game industry from a related industry to make some money...sounds a lot like Sony and Microsoft, doesn't it?
If you can't respect other gaming experiences elsewhere because they don't align with your tastes, that is when you start treading on the ground of fanboyism.
Uh, Silks, aren't cards a part of "gaming" too? Or is this another casualty of the ever-shrinking terms of what is or is not a "game?"
I think you are going to lose this one, Silks. Other than a few ridiculous side-business that Yamauchi tried in the 80's, Nintendo has basically, fundamentally, always been about games, and/or entertainment. They are the last purely integrated hardware/software makers. MS and Sony can, and if their losses continue, probably WILL leave the video game business and go to other things, like Operating systems and Televisions. Nintendo can't as it is their only business.
And if you are one of those guys that think that because they have a history in the business and fans that they'll never, ever leave the industry... well... look at Sega.
ever leave the industry... well... look at Sega.
I think Nintendo's whole "big-budget games are killing the industry" mantra is more a convenient way to justify their business strategy than anything else. As a company, they want to make as much profit as possible, so it serves their business interests to promote a philosophy that has them spending as little money as possible to develop a game.
I think Nintendo's whole "big-budget games are killing the industry" mantra is more a convenient way to justify their business strategy than anything else. As a company, they want to make as much profit as possible, so it serves their business interests to promote a philosophy that has them spending as little money as possible to develop a game.
Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist? An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)
I think Nintendo's whole "big-budget games are killing the industry" mantra is more a convenient way to justify their business strategy than anything else. As a company, they want to make as much profit as possible, so it serves their business interests to promote a philosophy that has them spending as little money as possible to develop a game.
Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist? An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)
Cost more than Carnival Games it may, but I hardly doubt it comes close to other AAA titles coming out this holiday.
Cost more than Carnival Games it may, but I hardly doubt it comes close to other AAA titles coming out this holiday.
Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist? An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)
I don't understand how people feel that Sony and Microsoft are somehow less invested in the video game arena than Nintendo.
Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist? An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)
Besides, I'd argue that the industry needs those blockbuster "event" games to draw attention to itself.
I think Nintendo's whole "big-budget games are killing the industry" mantra is more a convenient way to justify their business strategy than anything else. As a company, they want to make as much profit as possible, so it serves their business interests to promote a philosophy that has them spending as little money as possible to develop a game. They aren't battling for technological superiority of your living room like Microsoft and Sony, so it makes sense that they're espousing the virtues of cheap development on older hardware. But Mother Theresa they ain't.
Nintendo is the last console manufacturer that primarily makes money by selling video games.
Nintendo is the last console manufacturer that primarily makes money by selling video games.
At this point, I think Nintendo might be making more money off the systems than the games.
I don't understand how people feel that Sony and Microsoft are somehow less invested in the video game arena than Nintendo. Yes, if the Sony and Microsoft gaming divisions ceased to exist, both of those companies would continue to operate. But they have BILLIONS tied up in their game divisions, and are fighting tooth and nail to "win". Sony's been in the space for 13 years, and Microsoft has been in it for what, 7 already? That's not a short-term investment. That's not a dalliance, it's not a fling with video gaming. Playstation and Xbox are two of the most important brands in both of those companies' portfolios. To say that they're somehow less invested in gaming based on the criteria that their competitor only does gaming is B.S. to me.
Microsoft is so non-invested and ready to turn their back on the industry, that they only stuck around 7 years before they even turned a profit.
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/10/25/microsoft-entertainment-division-turns-profit-thanks-halo/
And Sony was ready to totally bail on the PS3 too and dump their Games division, despite 13 years in the industry and massive success...oh wait, they just turned a profit too.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/31/sonys-game-division-turns-a-profit/
This claim that Sony and Microsoft are somehow going to pack up and go home at the first sign of trouble is a MYTH. They're both here for the duration, and they're both making money so they aren't going to leave.Then why the hell does a game like Wario Land Shake exist? An old-school 2D platformer with hand-drawn characters (yes, a game with sprites costs much more than it does to just use 3D models) and outsourced anime cutscenes? (done by a well-known and renowned animation studio: Production I.G.)
If you think Nintendo is breaking the bank to develop Wario Land Shake It, you're crazy. Nothing against that game, but I'm sure it was done by a pretty small team. It's not the amount of work involved, it's the number of resources involved that drive development prices up.
On the subject of profitable game divisions... (http://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/why-microsoft-should-spin-off-the-xbox/)
If you think Nintendo is breaking the bank to develop Wario Land Shake It, you're crazy. Nothing against that game, but I'm sure it was done by a pretty small team. It's not the amount of work involved, it's the number of resources involved that drive development prices up.
Does that graph include Sony and Nintendo's massive R&D expenses? That would be part of their games division's profit and loss statement, I would assume. Of course Nintendo is making a ton of profit...they basically re-packaged the GameCube with a new controller.
There's minimal R&D expenses for Nintendo on the hardware side, aside from maybe Miyamoto sitting on the crapper thinking up the Wii Remote.
Now theoretically, yes, Sony and Microsoft could cut and run (GP: Yes, I realize that these companies have other divisions...I GET IT). However, my point was that that is so remote a possibility that there's virtually no chance of that happening.
Both companies kept tossing money at their games division even when it didn't make "business sense" to do so.
And don't even bring up Sega...they were so mismanaged it isn't even funny. You may disagree with what Sony and Microsoft do, but you can't accuse either company of being mismanaged **in a general sense**.
Sony and Microsoft have just as much interest in the game industry's health and future as Nintendo does. Just because they aren't making Pikmin 3 and Wii Music doesn't mean that they're bloodsuckers parasitically feeding off the industry (which seems to be the general consensus around here).
Sony and Microsoft did much more for the game industry from 1995-2006 than Nintendo did, that's for sure.
Before the Wii, Nintendo was bordering on irrelevancy (a downslide which, by the way, could be attributed to their greedy move of going with cartridges over CD-ROMs for the N64, which was done to fatten their bottom line because they could charge developers a royalty fee for the cartridges. So much for helping the industry).
There's minimal R&D expenses for Nintendo on the hardware side, aside from maybe Miyamoto sitting on the crapper thinking up the Wii Remote.
I don't understand how people feel that Sony and Microsoft are somehow less invested in the video game arena than Nintendo. Yes, if the Sony and Microsoft gaming divisions ceased to exist, both of those companies would continue to operate. But they have BILLIONS tied up in their game divisions, and are fighting tooth and nail to "win".
Christ, an anti-fanboyism article has quickly devolved into an argument dominated by fanboys.
Christ, an anti-fanboyism article has quickly devolved into an argument dominated by fanboys.
This is my favorite part of this thread. Somehow Nintendo's business strategy vs. that of Sony and Microsoft has something to do with fanboyism.
I think this gets back to my core point. Who cares? Seriously. They all make systems that play games, regardless of the reason why, that is what they do. Don't get caught up in the details and just play the games you like without passing judgment on the ones you don't.
P.S. Your avatar makes me smile so much!
I CARE.
Because this is the electronic interweb, and you've all been entertaining me.
This is electronic entertainment. It's also a flipside to Nintendo's present business, also electronic entertainment.
This is my favorite part of this thread. Somehow Nintendo's business strategy vs. that of Sony and Microsoft has something to do with fanboyism.
Hey! Who edited my brilliant, Nobel-prize-winning post?
I didn't mean to insult anyone! I'm trying to bring arguments like this (which I see soooo often on these boards) to a sudden close.
What about Fast-Food Fanboys? Is that OK???
(http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/8742/gabenewellxg9.png)
KFC FTW!!!
[...] let me ask an extremely simple question about this. Who has more to lose if the gaming industry struggles? MS, Sony or Nintendo?
What about Fast-Food Fanboys? Is that OK???
KFC FTW!!!
As a black man.........I wish I could swim in that bucket of chicken.
/stereotype
What about Fast-Food Fanboys? Is that OK???
KFC FTW!!!
As a black man.........I wish I could swim in that bucket of chicken.
/stereotype
That reminds me. It's been years since I moved out of my parents' house, and I never fulfilled my childhood fantasy of having a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken all to myself (no, not all at once) instead of having to fight over the best pieces, not to mention the paltry provisions of side orders.
If you buy Nintendo systems exclusively, you may think you're sending the industry the message "I like Nintendo's style." But really, isn't the message actually "I don't want masterpieces like Shadow of the Colossus"?
As a black man.........I wish I could swim in that bucket of chicken.
/stereotype
As a black man.........I wish I could swim in that bucket of chicken.
/stereotype
Sorry to tell you, but that ain't chicken.
Are you one of those crazies who believes the company changed from "Kentucky Fried Chicken" to "KFC" because they couldn't legally call the product chicken anymore? Because that's dumb.
Still, I'd rather fry my own chicken.
KFC is no more in control of the meat in their restaurants than McDonald's is in control of the wheat in their buns.
OK, time to derail the derailing of the derailing of this thread.
Deg, you calling me "condescending and inflammatory" is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it. Heck, other people on staff have noticed how personal you get with your insults.
I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future. They're entrenched as entrenched can be. It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division. Is it in the realm of possibility that that could that happen with Honda or Apple? Absolutely. Will that happen? Hell no. Now, Honda's cars and iPods are ridiculously successful so of course they won't get dropped, but the 360 and PS3 are both successful in their own right (not in terms of profitability, but definitely from a strategic standpoint; they also have millions of loyal users).
And again, Sega is one of the most mismanaged companies in the history of the gaming industry. The only thing they proved is that, yes, if you release three failed consoles in a row and have terrible marketing, you won't be making consoles any more.
Nintendo's choice to go with cartridges and Sony's choice to go with Blu-Ray were both totally driven by self-interest. Nintendo wanted to make money off of cartridges that they couldn't make with CDs, Sony wanted to push Blu-Ray. Where they differ is the fact that Nintendo's move negatively impacted the experience of their customers. It made companies like EA stop making games for the platform, and caused many developers to not even consider making games for it. Blu-Ray's inclusion has certainly pushed Sony's agenda, but it hasn't hurt gamers either.
I'm going to not pay attention to any of the (mostly) good points in this post and instead bash Silks for (probably accidentally) implying that the Genesis was a failed console.
I don't think they'll leave the industry. They'll just continue their failure trend, and fail the next time as well.
They'll probably alienate their so-called "core" audiences in the future, cuz they're poised to do so given the non-growth they've displayed since the 360 was launched.
More like niche'd into obscurity than niche'd out of existence (they're stubborn companies, afterall).
According to Vee-Gee-charts the PS3 has sold 15m worldwide and the 360 has sold 20m worldwide. Those are pretty massive userbases, certainly enough to make some money off of.
Anybody that owns a PS3 is a potential game buyer. Even if they just use it for Blu-Ray, Sony still makes money. You're talking about game tie ratio, which is a different issue. Since the PS3 is multipurpose, you can't use "game purchases"as the only success criteria. It's a big one, but not the only one.
As for the 360, I'm assuming you mean people that moved from a Pro to an Elite. I can see your point, but those Pro sales didn't just disappear when the Elite was bought. Besides, the Pro consoles that were sold or traded in on an Elite likely went to somebody who is now buying 360 games, and is part of the active userbase.
You could say Nintendo DS sales are similarly inflated, since there are plenty of double-dippers in that userbase too.
a refurbished unit provided by Microsoft does not count as a sale.
That's the thing though, I don't see the 360 and PS3 as failures at all. Well, the 360 has utterly failed in Japan, but it's doing robust business in the U.S., and Microsoft is making money off of it. The PS3 is still a player in the Japanese marketplace, and it's gaining momentum in the U.S. as well.
I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future. They're entrenched as entrenched can be. It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division.
In fact, some might say they already have, since they've pretty much stopped catering to the "core" gaming audience (or at least the audience that they catered to with the SNES, N64, and GameCube) because there isn't any money in it.
I think the PS3 is a failure as a followup to the PS2, it's a success as a way of forcing BluRay on people but it lost a lot of the market the PS2 had. Going from having a marketshare over 50% to being the weakest player in the market is a failure.
A good way to compare Honda to Sony is their F1 division as their games division. They are pretty much dead last, despite pouring billions of dollars into it, and buying staff from other F1 teams.
The whole "PS3 doesn't have good exclusives" deal is totally a perception issue. In reality, the PS3 has plenty of great exclusives (Warhawk, Resistance, Uncharted, MGS4, MLB 08, Motorstorm, a slew of excellent games on PSN, etc.)
You can't compare the N64 to the PS3.
You can say that the PS3 is a failure when compared to PS2, but GameCube is also a failure when compared to Wii. It goes both ways. Also, Nick is right when he says that the PS3 is a hiccup for Sony. The PS3 put Sony in the red to the tune of something like $3 Billion, but saying that that will run them out of the business is pretty silly when they made about $10 BAZILLION on the PS2.
OK, time to derail the derailing of the derailing of this thread.
Deg, you calling me "condescending and inflammatory" is the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it. Heck, other people on staff have noticed how personal you get with your insults.
I think that saying Nintendo was going to "cut and run" 5 years ago is as silly as saying Sony or Microsoft will today or in the near future. They're entrenched as entrenched can be. It's like saying Honda is going to drop their car division, or Apple is going to drop their iPod division. Is it in the realm of possibility that that could that happen with Honda or Apple? Absolutely. Will that happen? Hell no. Now, Honda's cars and iPods are ridiculously successful so of course they won't get dropped, but the 360 and PS3 are both successful in their own right (not in terms of profitability, but definitely from a strategic standpoint; they also have millions of loyal users).
And again, Sega is one of the most mismanaged companies in the history of the gaming industry. The only thing they proved is that, yes, if you release three failed consoles in a row and have terrible marketing, you won't be making consoles any more.
Nintendo's choice to go with cartridges and Sony's choice to go with Blu-Ray were both totally driven by self-interest. Nintendo wanted to make money off of cartridges that they couldn't make with CDs, Sony wanted to push Blu-Ray. Where they differ is the fact that Nintendo's move negatively impacted the experience of their customers. It made companies like EA stop making games for the platform, and caused many developers to not even consider making games for it. Blu-Ray's inclusion has certainly pushed Sony's agenda, but it hasn't hurt gamers either.
Hey if I only tick you off it's better than you trolling and flaming the entire board, calling them children, morons, uneducated, unserious, because they don't like the same games you do and suspecting THEM of fanboyism. What. Ever.
The thing is I never said that Sony and MS WILL pull out. They are just more likely to because 1) They are losing a lot of money in this industry and 2) It's not really getting them anywhere other than "having a lot of loyal fans." Then you use two companies that are making a lot of profit, Honda off cars and Apple off iPods, and say that they are similar to Sony and MS. Being "entrenched" means nothing if keep bringing in red numbers and fail to grow. As an example, Stage6, a popular DivX service meant to challenge Youtube through high quality video. They had 17.4 million monthly visitors, and were going strong. Then suddenly and unexpectedly to their loyal fans, they shut the service down, citing hemorrhaging money costs. This all despite their assertion that they would "live forever." (and speaking of which, that number is more than two million more than "loyal PS3 owners")
So Microsoft has one more in them and Sony has two more? I don't think you grasp the realities of the situation concerning Microsoft and Sony. Microsoft has not made one red cent in this industry. They haven't even made one cent this Generation, although they have lost less. Somehow they'll have to justify a third to MONEY people and MONEY people don't care about "Loyal fans." Wanna know the REAL "hardcore abandoners?" Try investors.
And just to point out about Sony. In the last TWO years, they have squandered their ENTIRE profits from the last TEN. that means... PS1, FFVII, FFVIII, FFIX, MGS, GT, GT2, PS2, God of War, FFX, FFXI, FFXII, MGS2, MGS3, GTA III, GTA VC, GTA SA, Every Madden and every and all things in between... *pfft* gone. And they're still losing money. This could even erase their gains from their SONY IMAGESOFT days. And this is with them selling approx. 42 million hardware units (PSP and PS3), and having multiple million sellers. It would take a miracle to reverse Sony's fortunes, and no amount of magazine reviews can lead the majority to water here.
Cartridges actually drove user experience up. Many gamers praised it for the elimination of long loading times which were worse then than they are now. And you are correct, developers did shy away from the N64, but that had little to do with the user experience. In fact it took a great long while before the developers actually made any PS1 games worth owning, different medium or not. And counterpoised, I'd say Blu-Ray drove up unit costs greatly and prohibited a great many of the PS2 owners who wanted to upgrade and made them either hesitant or unable to purchase it. I'd say that wrecks the user experience and I don't know if 3rd parties like it or not.
Funny how this "Cart vs. CD" stuff doesn't apply to the DS and the PSP. Shouldn't the PSP just stomp the guts out of the DS? I mean the DS cards will, maybe, one day, hold 1GB. Maybe. UMD's hold 1.9 Gigs. Day one. Why is this not working here? I think it's clear that the third parties of old were trying to simply get out from under Nintendo at the time and found Sony a comfortable shelter. They did it because it was cheaper. Imagine that! Several PS1 games, including some fot he megablockbusters, were made for the PS1 because they had a large userbase and it was cheaper to do so than make games on the N64 with it's higher graphical demands. Wonder if something similar will happen in the future?
And Kudos for proving that Sony and MS will stay in the games business because one day in the future, Nintendo might possibly do something else. So the permanence of the market is proven by its impermanence? Do you have any idea what you are saying? Sony and MS will stay in this one because Nintendo might enter another? What?
I still think they'll be tech leaders though...it's their niche, like Nintendo's niche is low-priced and mass-market.Mass market is a niche? LOL. Also isn't this the first time in history the Sony platform has been "tech leader"? How is that a trend?
Mass market is a niche? LOL. Also isn't this the first time in history the Sony platform has been "tech leader"? How is that a trend?
Of course this is a Nintendo driven website, so the preference of most readers of the site is Nintendo.
QuoteI still think they'll be tech leaders though...it's their niche, like Nintendo's niche is low-priced and mass-market.Mass market is a niche? LOL. Also isn't this the first time in history the Sony platform has been "tech leader"? How is that a trend?
Everybody's ultimately aiming for the mass market, but at this point it's pretty obvious that Nintendo is catering to that market almost exclusively.
I did that in one thread and I admitted it, but if you insist on trolling me for eternity then knock yourself out.
I wasn't talking about load times. I was talking about the effect that cartridges had on third-party relations, causing developers to bail only AFTER people had already bought the console. Blu-Ray driving up the cost of the PS3 prevented people from buying it, but they didn't spend any money. The fact that the N64 used cartridges caused companies like EA to bail in the middle of the console's life cycle, essentially pulling the rug out from under gamers that assumed the console would have an acceptable amount of third-party support.
I don't think it applies because those DS cartridges likely cost a heck of a lot less to create in 2008 than the N64 cartridges did in 1996. I'm sure that Nintendo has revised their royalty structure due to the N64 debacle, as well. And I doubt that PS1 were much cheaper to develop than N64 games, either.
Yeah, as a matter of fact I do know what I'm saying. I'm saying not to put Nintendo a pedestal, because they got into the industry for the same reasons that Sony and Microsoft did, and can exit the same way you claim Sony and Microsoft can. If there's one thing that's permanent in the video game industry, it's impermanence. At one time Atari was just like Nintendo - on top of the world and insurmountable. Now they're all but gone.
OK, Nintendo is catering to 5-Year-Olds, Soccer Moms, and Grandmas. Sony is catering to adult gamers with discerning tastes, like myself.
QuoteOK, Nintendo is catering to 5-Year-Olds, Soccer Moms, and Grandmas. Sony is catering to adult gamers with discerning tastes, like myself.
I know this was a joke, but I'll bet ya that the Wii will end up with the most "discerning adults" by the end of it. For example, the PSP is obviously catering to the 18-29 male demographic, but they don't have the most males 18-29. DS does. The DS went through such a "identity crisis" of catering to "girls and grandpas" (with NWR piling on) and survived and is the darling of industry, the REAL Moneymaker, and will soon the best console ever released, just by the sheer number of new, different, and/or awesome titles (and MOUNDS and MOUNDS of shovelware timid third parties released because they were so sure the graphically superior PSP would win) that came out for it, no matter what demographic it's more-meaningful E3 shows were aimed at (hint: Nintendogs was the major theme for the DS in 2005. And Electroplankton. And everything else got a blurb)
OK, Nintendo is catering to 5-Year-Olds, Soccer Moms, and Grandmas. Sony is catering to adult gamers with discerning tastes, like myself.
;D
What I've always liked about the DS is that it's always had a healthy quantity of games to choose from across all genres (ever since Christmas 2005, of course). With the DS there's never been a point at which I've said, "There are no games that interest me on this platform". There's always something to look forward to on the DS in terms of my tastes, whether it's Bangai-O Spirits, KORG DS-10, Moon, or Tecmo Bowl. On Wii I honestly can't name one announced game that I even care about...MadWorld intrigues me, but like No More Heroes, if I never played it I wouldn't feel like I missed out.
Besides, I'd argue that the industry needs those blockbuster "event" games to draw attention to itself.
Whose attention? I sure don't see the MSM reporting on the new GoW, MGS, etc. I do see them report about low budget games like Wii Sports or Fit. You mean the gaming press? Why do you need their attention, there's nothing else they can cover anyway.
The whole "they invested so much" argument is silly, it's like claiming you shouldn't fold when half your money is in the pot. If you have to fold then fold, you may have lost half your money but you still have the rest, if you throw it at a pot with no realistic chance of winning then you're just losing even more.
I guess I'm an atypical gamer in that I don't like RPGs at all, most FPS games bore me (Wii control helps a lot though!), and non-Nintendo action/adventure games (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, God of War) just don't do it for me. So that basically eliminates the 360 and PS3 for me.
I'm interested in some stuff on other consoles of course (NHL 09, Too Human because of my ED love) but it isn't nearly enough to make me buy a system.
Hah, nope. That's exactly what happened. Honda ended up giving up F1 altogether and selling their team. Under new management they went on to win the world championship the following year. I love old threads.A good way to compare Honda to Sony is their F1 division as their games division. They are pretty much dead last, despite pouring billions of dollars into it, and buying staff from other F1 teams.
This is a much better analogy. See, Silks? It's not that people are saying that "Honda will stop making cars" it's more like saying "if Honda's F1 division continues racking up deficits for a long time, the board of executives could become tired of waiting for it to deliver on promises and decide it's not worth pursuing any longer". And that doesn't sound so crazy, does it?