morenoingrato said:
And even if Sony haven't released a new game system, it is in development, and they still have a great line-up that extends as far as 2012. |
What part of that did you miss? If Sony can make more games, that is because they have more people, not because they are equivalent to Nintendo, but magically more productive.
As for EA, their games not selling as well is the point. Again, saturation and thinning out.
Sure it would be nice if there was a situation where Nintendo could release a constant stream of games, but they don't have as many people as you think.
Now you could blame a misallocation of their talent causing the gap, but assuming they are just as comparable to larger companies, or to assume that the money they make can magically make the same amount of people work twice as hard, is ridiculous.
In short, you have a right to not like the lineup, but not the facts about why it happened, as they are fallacious. Hate the lineup because they planned poorly, not because they didn't supposedly spend enough of the money they made.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs








