1) yes I did think 3rd parties would come

2) no that is not why i sold my ps3

I sold my PS3 because there was only one game coming that I was at all interested in and I would rather put that money towards a future console (wii u) while the PS3 could still get a decent resell value.

i haven't play that game yet, i just like the box art

i remember you made a thread about why you sell your ps3 near Wii U launch or after it,( i don't remember), anyway the point still stand.  If you really don't want to buy another console because there's nothing for you to play, fair enough, but if there's other reasons behind it like been hurt due to how third parties studio treat Nintendo, well, let say it's your choice to limit yourself enjoying other games.

If these are "the times" I hope Nintendo never joins them. Whole new landscapes of a game like Zelda put in to DLC? What a bother that would be.

I always love it when people who have a strong bias against Nintendo complain about different colored Pokémon editions. Hate to break it to you guys, but me and my friends loved that because we were able to trade Pokémon we couldn't get with each other. That's the whole point. And if you don't have friends you can always use online. 

Uncharted is a franchise that stays pretty much the same throughout the years. There's a big difference between Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario Galaxy and Super Mario 3D World. The only game that was similar was Super Mario Galaxy 2. 

We get one Mario Kart per console. We get one Super Smash Bros. per console. We get one or two 3D Mario platformer(s) per console. We get one or two Zelda game(s) per console. 

If this was EA we'd get yearly releases of Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart and Zelda. Nintendo at least releases quality. 

I didn't know you could play Super Mario 3D World in 2004, was it secretly on the GC or GBA/DS?

I am pretty fine with most games even without purchasing the dlc and even if I would have to buy one or two to get the experience I want, since we pay still the same for games as over a decade ago I am not really surprised that developers/publishers do that. Why exactly is this industry almost the only industry where it isn't allowed to rise the prices so that companies in this industry feel forced to do all that stuff with the dlc? 

Every year people pay more for their cinema visit and people live with it but all you hear from gamers is "I would never pay more than 60 bucks" and if publishers try to get the money they need with others systems they also complain about that.

In 30 years people will pay the same for a movie in the cinema as for a game like Call of Duty 25 but you will only get 1 map and a dog and everything else is dlc.

I mean, it's not as if publishers could simply say "hey employees, from now on you will never get a loan increase so that our costs will stay the same"

I'm obviously exaggerating and like I already said, most games are still fine even without dlc. The dlc for games like Borlderlands is probably nice but it's not as if the game would be unplayable without that and I don't believe that a game like Infamous or The Witcher 3 will be only good with dlc.

I don't like that idea either.

NSMBU is perfect example. They did not add DLC to bring worlds 10 and 11 and 12. They added a wholly new game NSLU that is a completely different gameplay idea and it added a ton of value to the existing base. Hell, it was even sold as a stand alone disc game due to its awesomeness.

Pikmin3 is another good example. They've added completely new maps/games/etc for multiplayer and they do that as bundles. Clearly new games that appeal to those who really liked the multiplayer/challenge games but not any part of the main game.

Again, both examples of the 1995 image above.

Pssst. PC developers/publishers take advantage of you too. Just because Steam itself has risen a very user-friendly platform, doesn't mean that all PC developers/publishers are user friendly. In fact, many, such as Activision/Blizzard and Bethesda (just as obvious examples) aren't.



@Superchunk

I half-way agree with you. I will likely continue to buy Nintendo consoles. I've never had any interest in the Xbox brand in general. I own a PS2 and PS3, but for now at least I have no desire to buy a PS4. IF The Last Guardian ever comes out, and a few other games eventually come out that I may want  on the system (such as potential exclusive Vanillaware games, etc.), then I may get one years from now when the price is relatively cheap. But I certainly won't by buying one any time soon, and perhaps never will. It all depends.

I am not all that into most of the third party franchises I'm "missing out" on owning a Wii U, in large part because most of these newer franchises simply don't appeal to me, and because the third party companies that I used to love (Square, Enix, Capcom, Namco, Konami, Midway, Hudson Soft, etc.), are either effectively dead or have shit themselves into mediocrity within the last 15 years.

So yeah, I guess you could check me next to that Wii U + PC (for indie games) box.

Then you have extremely narrow tastes that are completely at odds with the vast majority of gamers.

Wouldn't the money still go to evil 3rd parties if you buy their games on Steam? What rules out consoles as another viable option to play these games?