hollabackenny on 29 March 2013
| Alphachris said: In my opinion it is fair to make a differnce between home consoles and handhelds. It is very questionable if those are real substitutes. * A console needs a TV set and there is competition for the TV-set. If someone wants to watch TV or a DVD you can't play with the console at the same time. If you have a handheld you do not need a TV set and you can play whenever you want, even on the go. * You can play splitscreen coop with a console, but you need two handhelds to play coop. * Handhelds do not offer the same technolical experience as consoles. * Handhelds have a limited screensize * Handhelds (especially from Nintendo) are often bought for Kids as entry game device. You know what I mean if you go into a department store looking for a game like Final Fantasy IV and see what other games are available... The next thing is that CoD only covers 1 genre. CoD is surely bigger on home consoles than Mario Platformers or Mario Kart racing games. We should also note that CoD sold that well despite quality competition... There are many high quality shooter who could take away sales from CoD. (Battlefield, Halo, Killzone, Resisance,....) while there is not much competiton for Super Mario Galaxy or Mario Kart´that could take sales away. So in the end CoD really seems to be bigger on home consoles for me. But I did not play a single CoD game by now and I never will as I do not like Shooters. So I personally would take Mario over CoD if someone would offer me a free game. But on a neutral point of view CoD should win this fight on home consoles. |
Most logical reply I've seen although it will probably get ignored by many.
