Wyrdness said:
you completely go radio silent on the argument all together like the graphical costs one, fact is if you don't like people countering your arguments don't create the thread. |
Others here have already giving their different views and opinions and i'm okay with that as that's why i made this thread for, to share my views and for others to share theirs with me whether we agree or disagree on each others points. You however, are the only one who made the claim that Wii U failed for catering only to core gamers and not catering to the casuals which i find absurd and disagreed with because not only would Nintendo be stupid to ignore the audience that made their previous console their best selling home console ever, it's simply not true. So all i basically asked for is proof, which you don't have but you keep acting like you do when most of the points you've brought up are either irrelevant or pure nonsense, Yes, i'm referring to your PS3 and Reggie's comments and running a company as hilarious as it still sounds but yeah you're allowed to counter my arguments but that doesn't mean i have to agree with your points either.
Regarding your latest "trump card" of an argument you have out of the many... It's easy to provide an article that says "PS3 and Xbox 360 has lost Sony and MS billions of dollars" without any context, only wrong predictions, since you again chose to compare the Wii U with and fail to realise that both the PS3 and Xbox360 were sold at a ridiculous loss for having more Ram, bluray/dvd drives, 80-120 GB harddrives, ehternet port etc. Incase you don't know for every console not sold the companies lose a bunch of money, for every console sold the companies still loses money so both Sony and MS suffered years of losses without mentioning all of the hardware failures, price cuts, warranties and court cases for all of the dumb decisions they've made over the years related to their home systems it wasn't until they stripped a bunch of features from their consoles, released good games and made the consoles cheaper that they could make a profit. This is what happens when companies think their product well sell based on previous product's success like Nintendo thought with Wii U. The Wii U was somewhat more powerful than PS360 but it didn't cost nearly as much as a PS3 or Xbox 360 because it was barebones on features which previous generations of consoles had already introduced, yet Nintendo still chose to sell the WiiU at a loss which was a dumb move by Nintendo and made them lose money because Wii U's weren't selling. The PS4 is selling on a profit, the Switch is selling on a profit and it initially cost the same as a Wii U so you saying that Nintendo can't afford a beefier more expensive console is not true, in fact, had Nintendo ditched the gamepad and focused more on the Wii U's specs it would've made a better chance against the PS4 it's just, like i said, Nintendo wants their consoles to be innovative and cheap but they can definitely afford it if they chose to stick to traditional gaming focused on specs and don't make dumb decisions like they did with the Wii U. We've yet to see what the Switch Pro will be like, probably 350 like their Wii U deluxe eidition was.
But after all of this whether English is my first language or not you still don't have anything to prove Wii U was catering to core audiences and stopped with casuals like you claimed... so once again, you've tried.
| sethnintendo said: It was so successful it doesn't need that other s |
Yeah i guess i like it that way
| Wyrdness said: Wtf? Not only does this reply makes no sense in any context on what's being debated but |
That's exactly how i felt reading most of your arguments these days.
Essay Pro