Super_Boom said:
It's not hard to say anything when you're arguing opinions. Your criteria for winning E3 doesn't necessarily align with everyone else's. Some might argue winning has to deal with market impact, variety of the show, release date of the games involved, or just having the most games they want to play. In other cases, someone might decide that having their favorite game is enough to win E3. There's no right or wrong answer, despite what some people might claim. It's what makes this argument so asanine to begin with honestly. |
Personal win is quite different than saying they destroyed all competition with one game. But I do agree people may decide by different standards who won or not.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."