| mrstickball said: Where did I twist my definition of what a loser was or is? The 3DS will have a lot less market share and market to cater to, as I believe it will sell about 50% of the hardware, life to date. I've been saying this well prior to the 3DS even coming out, as I believed mobiles will take away a lot of users that would traditionally buy a handheld console. And given the market, this has been the case as many publishers are making a further transition to multi-platform development, and will eventually release more exclusives to mobile, depriving the 3DS of major 3rd party hardware, which it needs to help it to strong sales, as the 3DS has nothing close to a killer app yet (and given the future lineup is unlikely to have, as all titles you've mentioned are almost all sequels to IPs already on the DS/3DS). |
New IP's are almost never killer apps. Not only that, but just because it's a "sequel" (not really) doesn't mean it wont make a lot of people buy it. A lot of people in Japan bought a 3DS for Animal Crossing, and it seems like it's what you're calling a "sequel" to the DS version. Fire Emblem isn't quite a sequel either, and there were many people who bought the game for that. Monster Hunter isn't even out yet outside of Japan on DS/3DS. I don't know about you, but I think depending on what kind of game it is, a sequel can be a killer app. Also, what are you even defining a killer app as? Super Mario 3D Land sold plenty of systems, and there are already a good few million-sellers on the 3DS.
Also, if you really think the mobile market will REALLY deprive the 3DS, then why can't you say the same thing about PCs for ANY console that is released next gen? Because PCs are in the EXACT same position, to be honest, as the "mobiles."
edit: Also, the way you're twisting it is that when I mentioned the PS3, you changed your definition of loser from "not doing as well as its predecessor" to "losing money."
