By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
oniyide on 16 March 2013
Edit Thread
wvelting said:
Otakumegane said:
Well.

Nintendo why you make so many bad decisions.


Will someone please explain why Nintendo keeps getting picked on for this.  MS makes a 4GB 360 and Sony makes a 12GB PS3, both of which would have to be upgraded to download a game like this.  Nintendo decided to let people use external HD's instead for expanded storage which workes just fine and is far cheaper than a hard drive pgrade for the 360 and for the most part no more than an upgrade for the PS3.  So...what's your problem with it?

 

Most people don't download full games anyways.  Why should everyone have to pay for a built in hard drive if most people would never use most of the space anyways.  To me, Nintendo's decision on this was a good one.  Also for me, we have 4 different external hard drives in my house, so it saved me money.

The thing is, those consoles have been around much longer and they have other OPTIONS, its not like those are the only ones you can get. ANd you have to look at price, the 4gig 360 is 100 bucks less than the basic wii U model that has only twice the space...most of which is going to be used to set up the OS anyway. (yes i know the cost is coming from the controller, but most wont care). PS3 has all kinds of options. Hell, for the same amount of money you can get a 500GB ps3 WITH a damn game. THe basic you get nothing,  and thats just one of there like 4 options. ANd the only other Wii U option is the more expensive deluxe set which is still the most expensive and only has 32 gigs. 

I get where people are coming from with the whole external harddrives and thats cool. But to the average consumer, it looks like a worst deal than the other two. Lets be real, Wii U is competing against PS360