| M.U.G.E.N said:
I think the difference this time around is that they are going into the next gen as the market leader...with a nice chunk of the casual market with them. That's why I think the approach I mentioned would have been better. But like you said...so many unknowns still. Only time will tell on how these companies will react and act in next gen. Either way I think it will be an even closer fight between the three next gen :D which is great for consumers because it results in the best outcomes for us that way! |
@bold. Ahh, that's a good point. A very good point I didn't think of that difference. However, my concern would be that the PS3 has much momentum still, and it would be yet still too early for Nintendo to change stance. Also, they were market leader, but they were not leader of the market that would be most catered by the architectural changes you propose. So you're quite right, but I still think it's too early. Maybe come gen 9 I'll agree with you more, as you said still the gen needs to pan out. At this point though, with what you said and with what happened in the past, I think this still might be the best way to go for now.
@Underline. Yes! And my only hope for Nintendo is that they are able to grab a little more of the gamer crowd with the help of Retro, 3rd parties (e.g. ZombiU like games) and some solid AAA IPs that cater to the hobbyist gaming community (like Metroid and Zelda). That's my hope. For Sony, I hope their Vita will do better because it is a great piece of HW, and it deserves to do well. And I hope the war on graphics will end, and that those who want crazy graphics will just stick to PCs, each thing in their rightful place.
