Sal.Paradise said:
archbrix said:
Sal.Paradise said:
Mr Khan said:
There's a difference between paying for exclusivity and deliberately ignoring one of the major platform-holders. We're not entitled to every game, but we are entitled to all multiplat games, because there's no good reason for it to not go that way.
|
You're not entitled to anything made by a third party because you own a single console mate, that's the nature of being 'third party' - they're not tied to any specific platform and have relative freedom change their minds at any time. R* do not owe anything to owners of any specific platform.
The only games you get to play on the Wii U are games Nintendo has secured and deemed fit for release. You're 'entitled' to those and those only. Same for any console.
|
So, by your logic, PS3-only owners aren't entitled to the game either... after all, that's the nature of R* being 3rd party...
Face it: The vast majority of 3rd party games today are multiplats; particularly one as big as GTA. What he means by "entitled" is that there is no good reason why the game shouldn't release on WiiU as well (and I actually believe there is a good chance it will, albeit late). If inferior versions of COD for Wii can break 1m in sales, there is little reason to assume that an on-par port of GTA5 for WiiU - one that would be a vastly easier port to boot - wouldn't sell enough to justify it.
|
Absolutey PS3 owners aren't entitled to their game. R* choose whichever platforms they want.
" What he means by "entitled" is that there is no good reason why the game shouldn't release on WiiU as well"
Well that's a whole other issue, and incorrect too.
|
When 95% of all 3rd party offerings are multiplats, don't pretend like it wouldn't be huge injustice if the game didn't also release for PS3.
Regarding your second point, while "entitled" may not have been the best word to use, the fact that there's no good reason still stands, so it's not incorrect at all.
