ChronotriggerJM said:
Game cost's aren't even that bad -_-; It's kind of funny, I'd see Ninty fanboi's laughing at PS3 and 360 owner's for having to pay $60 instead of $50, yet they forgot that N64 games were $70 in select stores >_>;;; and that's back when inflation was lower -_-;;; And nowaday's you can rent games and the like. |
You can't assume that all "Nintendo fanboys" were "fanboys" during the Nintendo 64 era. Second of all, I'm curious as to why you're bringing up pricepoints from over 10 years ago. If you're so fixated on the past, maybe we should have more games with N64-esque graphics. The fact is, things change over time, and our expectations change according to that. One of the major reasons discs were more ideal than cartridges was the FACT that they were cheaper, so the fact that you're comparing cartridge game prices to discs is also questionable.
Anyway, I agree with the OP, but not just on the PS3. Unfortunately, none of the three main consoles have much of a balanced portfolio in terms of games spanning every genre. However, it's up to the 1st party company to create a diverse portfolio for 3rd parties to follow. If Microsoft spends most of their funds creating shooters, 3rd parties will follow suit. Nintendo met great success with games like Brain Age, which is why you see tons of shovelware "brain" games on the Wii and DS at the moment. If Sony is mainly pushing titles like Resistance 2 and Killzone 2, what are 3rd party developers going to do?
