ZOMG XBOX360 VS. PS3 VS. WII ZOMG

And Im sorry about this, if thats true. The thing is both Sony and MS are using Motion Controller as a fun part. Even natal will be for small games.
If you put every game for motion they'll sure suk. How many of you guys enjoyed MK with remote? I was "fck this gimme the classic".
And they were not in the wrong direction. They were doing what SNES-N64 and PS1 told them.

Thats just not right. MS prooved every game can have an awesome MultiPlayer and Sony prooved how good the grapics can become. One made Natal and one made one of the most advanced hardware. And they are still trying to do that. Nintendo indeed created a new generation with Wii and sadly it involves our grandma.
And I just lol'd at bold part. If nintendo says "we wont make any more games"
People will say "Meh lets buy a 360 or Ps3".
My point is; Activision's Games are more beloved then Nintendo's.

BECOZ IT IS NOT THE FUTURE! Future is more and more FPS, RPG and racing games! Nintendo is not doing a favor to them becouse most of the 3rd party games dont go well with Wii. %90 of them have sales under 300.000. Such as MadWorld.

Well I gotta give you that one, some of my friends sold their 360 to buy a Wii or a Ps3 to play something different besides war.
But %97.3 of the gamers own ballz, you know that right? Blood sells.

MS and Nintendo loses money becouse of piracy and all ps3 players buy their game legally so dont worry about Sony.

Ignoring 1UP is a Sony hater fan site;
If your statement is true(people buy Ps3 for bluray)
People buy 360 for piracy
People buy Wii for their little kids so they wont see blood.
But this is wrong, there are more than 28K members for PSN and 16K+ Gold for 360.

So next time please ignore some web sites (kotaku, 1up, famitsu) and give some real quotes.

And at least but not least I will post this pic and gtfo from this topic since my fingers cant stand anoter reply like that:


Wii is failing.
360 is still the same.
Ps3 is rising.

And I dont think this will change even if they drop the price of the Wii.

 

Activison makes licenced garbage-what good other than tony hawk-which is over used-did they make?
(Guitar hero-I may have it but...I'm talking about original games-not over licened games-this replaced tony hawk)

And you can burn ps3 games...but wether they would work is another story.
(Not yet-but one day when they are cheasp...they'll make chips)


Sony's ps3 is too costly-even using backup's isn't cost effective-but so are the games, accessories ($79.95 for a controller-they should have cut out the six axis...)

Activison awhile back also said they might pull out of making ps3 games-the cost and lack of users...


Ps3 is starting to rise in sales in japan I admit-my therory-they already own a wii or the sales don't include second hand purchases of wii consoles.

The wii ain't failing in Australia-being sport orentated and many, many girls sucked into "wii sports" or "wii fit" keep the sales up-which games are on top of sales charts-wii games.

Xbox 360, well...I don't really look at the system-sure I'm ABOUT to own resident evil 5 for it-but only for collector's disc...

If I had a 360 I'd think about pirating on it-but thing is...those disc aren't as cheap as mini dvd's XD



All I can say is, nintendo redeemed themselves for their failure's in the gamecube and the n64, microsoft tried with 360, and the ps3 is a mixed bag-if your rich then stick to the ps3...



Not that I need one-my laptop play's blueray JUST fine

 

Why?
WHY?
WHY?!?!?!?!



I dunno I just never like like any of the playstations.

 

So, you choose to dodge my questions and then present more baseless claims without doing your homework...

You should really learn from your mistakes, especially when someone like me comes around and runs fact check on your statements.

I know ASD789 presented his statistics chart, but I also have something to present that will erase all doubt that his chart is doctored or forged: Console Sales in August 2009.

Also, on top of that, console sales on the week of September 5, 2009. Sales for the DS and Wii dropped quite a bit there (note the NEGATIVE percentages), while the PS3 got an enormous boost large enough to take over both Nintendo Consoles for first place due to the Slim model released. Also, note that Xbox360 got a 16% boost that week as well, which is better than how both, the Wii and the NDS consoles did.

Both of these sources happen to disagree with you; sales for both, the PS3 and the XBox 360 are rising, not declining just like what you said. They may not be topsellers yet, but the sales records show that both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 have a strong footing in the console competition due to their growth of sales. So, your claim is false. NEXT!

Actually, Sony and Microsoft have managed to expand the video game market on their own. Xbox 360 has the Xbox Live feature, and the PS3 has the Playstation Network feature. Both of these expand not just online gaming, but online game sales as well. You can argue that Sony and Microsoft are not being innovative as Nintendo is, but as far as the gaming market goes, innovation isn't everything. Remember Nintendo's Virtual Boy? That was one of Nintendo's old attempts at innovation that flopped badly.

Pop quiz, Mr. Ultra! What was Nintendo known for before they made the Nintendo console system? Also, to other idiots out there that love to show off and blurt answers, if your user name here isn't "ultra", please don't bother answering at all.

Also, your claim that "if video games die so does nintendo." is preposterous! You're assuming that the Nintendo company has no ability to adapt if there should come a point in some time that video games die off. Also, if you know the answer to that question I presented to you, that is proof that the Nintendo company has been capable of being able to adapt to the market trend in the past. For decades, video games happens to be Nintendo's main interest, especially right now, and should video games die off soon, I'm certain Nintendo will be able to prepare to transition to the next hot thing on the market.

Also, by stating that Nintendo will die once video games die, you have just insulted Nintendo. Good job!

What favors? Those third party companies have different interests and priorities compared to Nintendo's. Why should those third party companies have to change their priorities just because Nintendo is doing them 'favors'?

WRONG! Gamers spending less on games can be due to numerous of reasons, one of them being loss of income due to unemployment. This is especially true during a recession. So, no, the amount of game sales does not revolve entirely around the game productions itself.

Yeah, and the funny thing is that the more I research on your arguments, the more I find things that prove you wrong.

Regarding your claim, I came up empty-handed as I was googling, so let me throw the "do the research yourself" ball back in your court. Cite sources, you cop out!

There is a good reason why no one believes that the "wii is created to prevent that decline" as many people suspect that the Wii system is just a system with gimmick features. And, they are mostly right on that fact.

The reason why Wii sells is mostly because of gimmick titles such as the Wii Fit. But, here's a kicker - 64% of those people who bought Wii Fit don't use it anymore. Which guarantees that there are Wii systems sitting in households collecting dust. Which happens to be hilariously contradicting to your claim that Nintendo is "trying to save video games from declining." I don't see how Nintendo can accomplish that by selling game systems, in which most people would buy for gimmick titles, just to play it for a few weeks or months only to not play it anymore after that. Obviously, Nintendo isn't doing too well in your supposed 'theoretical' mission...

The only thing I see you doing is being condescending while shoving your beliefs about Nintendo into people's faces without any substantial evidence to back up your claims, which is a typical fanboy behavior.

As for people not being concerned about the Wii, why should they? People play the role as consumers in the video game market, and it is solely up to them to determine what they like and/or don't like. If people are not interested in some video game or a gaming console, they are entitled to express that.

The more you can give to the consumer through your product, the better. That's where the PS3 excels; it is a gaming console that doubles as a Blu-ray player.

 

Nah they kissed each other and now they are friends again! YAY!

Activision sure loves 360 more but CoD4 sold 4M units for Ps3. Thats big. They just cant stop it I think.

 

sega was both hardware and software. when sega left hardware they still have software and are still here. now that sega is in software, if video games die so does sega because there would no longer be hardware to make software. if video games die, that means nintendo die all at once and when video game dies we don't know if it will ever come back as what we used to know it.

if nintendo could adapt to other industries, as like what hypr have said, then that should mean most companies can. so what happened to the defunct software companies in the past, like grin or those from the early consoles like nec with turbo 16 for instance? they became nothing and that would be the end result of nintendo if video games die.

expanding refers to reaching other audiences. in no way has sony or microsoft done so with their 360/ps3. even with sony and microsofts motion controllers, they have no plans for expanding the audiences, just to gimmick them to buy their products and offer them cheap thrills. look at the ds, many of the games on the ds has reached everyone, from grandma and grandpa to little kids. what did the psp do to reach such audiences, absolutely nothing. this just tells you that if sony and microsoft were in charge of this industry, video games would become smaller and smaller and eventually die. what software has sony and microsoft released to expand their consoles to other then gamers?

piracy exists for a reason. piracy on the pc was never rampant until recently. back then people were encouraged to make back-ups as diskettes would break down. but it didn't cause a massive problem of piracy as we have seen today. but for some reason today, there is this problem. and if you read the right information on the internet, some have said it is due to the decline in quality of the game. people pirate because they want to as you don't have to buy the software but people also pirate because the value of that software is low and they find that spending money on it is useless.

use charts and graphs only if you understand how to use them other wise don't use them. you can look at the numbers litterally and use it as it is as what some of the posters have done and though it is okay to do so, it is blind sighted to do so.

btw, check this video out
http://cube.ign.com/dor/articles/664497/reggie-fils-aimes-presentation-from-the-gamers-summit/videos/reggie_part1.html

 

Okay rest of the post defends Nintendo to death as always, you have some points but;

This is so wrong. So so so wrong. I mean, worst paragraph in all of 6 pages.
Gaming is not like this becouse of Nintendo.
Teenagers play games. Gamers play games.
All gaming web sites, from IGN to Gamespot, consider Wii as a kid's console. I cant show you a solid proof but read some posts. all like "we know Wii is not for you but MadWorld can change this" or "You havent bought a Wii becouse it wasnt for you? well think again becouse it now got a price drop!". All consoles had a decent amount of children's, old pal's games but making a console just for that? %90 of the exclusives are 3+...
And I really cant see why people are defending this idea. Wii is made for money and people know it. Even if they(you) dont know it, check the latest exclusives. All made for money. I mean, all.
...
Dude I just cant try to explain why you are wrong with this paragraph.

Again, I dont want to argue about Nintendo, I love them but I can talk anyting about Wii.

 

1....did you re-read that-I got lost a few times...

2.How about your own opinion?

Nintendo had the ideal of "games are family play things-so we aim at pleasiing everyone" which would mean that game like mortal kombat on SNES would be censored.

They aren't kiddy-they aim at pleasing everyone-my farther wouldn't approve of the way god of war plays-but nethier resident evil which IS ALSO on nintendo format-just because mario hasn't decapitated anyone doesn't brand the whole system as kiddy.

This is one of many reasons why I stuck to nintendo-Sure I love violence-but too much meaning less blood detracts from gameplay (for example-mortal kombat-that hasn't changed much...i still like it but it's getting old...)

3.The ps2 had a large amount of shovel ware as well.


Those "3+" games are because the system was popular, and they thought maybe they'd sell...(they thought of the fact mario and them are there so they just threw them over-they do sell sadly)

On the ps2 it had large amounts of shovel ware as well-sure it was a mix of preteen games and "3+" rubbish, but still...

Like initial d 4 for the win

But aren't those distributed by another company...I forgot the name but...I only know sega to just make the games...

 

But 360 is also popular and they are making games like "Legendary", thinking it may sell
They made "Ninja Bread Man" for Wii, thinkin it may sell.

But I tried to explain (IMO) why gaming=nintendo is wrong up there. Rest is just my crap, my personal oppinions. Ignore them and re-read his paragraph.

"this just tells you that if sony and microsoft were in charge of this industry, video games would become smaller and smaller and eventually die. what software has sony and microsoft released to expand their consoles to other then gamers?"

Just answer that, do you think this is true?

 

You and your logical fallacies...

What you just committed there was a hasty generalization fallacy. That is, what applies to one, doesn't apply to all. You assumed that just because Nintendo has the potential to adapt to changing market conditions, then the other companies should be able to do it too. Wrong assumption, wrong conclusion.

Also, I have cautioned you to do your research before spouting off false bullshit. By the way, the company NEC that made the Turbo 16 game console is still in business as of today. NEC is a general electronics company, which they have always been ever since the company has started.

Baseless claims with no source cited... yet again.

Also, if you want to accuse Sony and Microsoft of "gimmicking people to buy their products and offer cheap thrills", then Nintendo is guilty of the same crime. I've pointed out already (in my last post) of people purchasing Wii consoles just for the Wii Fit game, only to play it a few times and then hang up their Wii system for good.

Again, you make another hasty generalization about both Sony and Microsoft should they lead the video game market industry. Who do you think you are? Some guy with a magical crystal ball that can foretell the future based on certain events?

Also, you are overlooking the fact that the third-party companies can also determine the quality of the games released for each console. Case in point: Bayonetta for the PS3, which is a crappy port done by Sega.

People pirate stuff to try before buying as well.

How is using charts that show increasing growth of sales of both, the PS3 and the XBox 360 (which contradicts your bullshit claim that sales of the PS3 and Xbox 360 are decreasing) blind-sighted? Is it because you would prefer such information that refutes your baseless claims to be absent from this debate? If that is the case, then please, leave the debate board, otherwise, just admit that you are wrong to assume such things without checking the facts.

And to add onto your suggestion regarding us using charts, I'll like to throw one back at you as well: DON'T SPOUT OFF BULLSHIT CLAIMS WITHOUT CHECKING THE FACTS.

 

"Also, your claim that "if video games die so does nintendo." is preposterous! You're assuming that the Nintendo company has no ability to adapt if there should come a point in some time that video games die off. ..., I'm certain Nintendo will be able to prepare to transition to the next hot thing on the market." hypr

adapting takes time. if an industry just died you can't simply say the next day as a company that you're going to go into another industry. a company would have to do research and development and understand the new market place, which they are entering, and that takes resources. nintendo only has a focus in video games and if they did adapt and enter new industries, they are then facing tougher competition with existing companies and that is even harder and the probability of success is not within their favor. btw, why is nintendo only able to be adaptable but no other company? it's very strange how the hardcore always put such ideas on this.

nec has always been in chip making or whatever market they were in but they were never originally a video game company like nintendo. nec is like sony and microsoft, that is when turbo 16 died, they had a fallback industry which they were already in. but if you look at the past with companies that are only in video games [and there are a lot], they never comeback. most of the companies you see are those with a fallback option and the fact that those companies with fallback option don't comeback to video games only tells you that once you go, you don't comeback. there is no fallback option for nintendo.

video games will never die but it'll just be something there and no one will care. ask loony about pc gaming today as it was before. there are new pc games that comes out now and then but it's something that people don't care any more if you compared it to how it was in the past. the only games that will be made are 360/ps3 games and the focus will only be on technology. this means only big companies are able to make money and that means only making games that make money only.

if you watch that ign video i posted, it shows and tells you how video games is at a decline. the fact that ps3/360 are making sales it doesn't tell us that it's expanding the audiences. all it tells us is that there are people buying it but it doesn't tell us who is buying it. it can be previous ps3 owners who want the slimmer version or 360 owners who were holding back for purchasing a bulky ps3 unit or a hardcore gamer who is waiting for that $300 price tag or whatever the reason is. but it is in no way telling us that it is attracting the non gamers. as a non/mild gamer, what software do the 360/ps3 offer to them to play? nothing. if grandma and grandpa and little kids bought a ps3/360, what software will they play on those systems? nothing. look at the ds and psp comparison, psp isn't going any where because there are no software for non/mild gamers to play games. on the ds, a grandma and grandpa could play a game like brainage or professor layton, little kids can play mario kart or that fossil game that just came out. on the psp, where would these people find such games?

gaming doesn't mean gaming all the time. that is just crazy. if gaming is to game all the time, then movies mean to watch movies all the time, right? this is absurd thinking. this is why the hardcore and the direction ps3/360 were heading would have killed the industry. everytime someone mentions this idea of gaming all the time, it reminds me of that 1980's mac commercial where all the people are brainwashed into the screen and along comes the girl [nintendo if you will] who is trying to break this crazy cycle by throwing the hammer into the screen. gaming as a life style, no, gaming as an entertainment just as how movies is for entertainment. so i don't mind that people bought a wii and wiifit and later put it away because they bought it to be entertained. when they're done with it they put it away and when they have guess over or want to play again, they bring it out of the closet and play.

i can't explain everything because doing so is meaningless. you will have to do the "read between the lines" analysis yourself to understand it. other wise you're just going to disagree with everything that is mentioned.

 

Alright, it's clear you're confused. And just to be clear, I didn't say "no other company but Nintendo has the capability to adapt." What I DID say however is that it is wrong to ASSUME that just because Nintendo has potential to adapt, the other gaming companies should be able to do the same too. Hence, your hasty generalization logical fallacy.

And now, you're being presumptuous. I have not sided with Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo at all. However, I am against YOU in particular for making false claims and copping out in this debate with no supporting facts or evidence.

Finally, you get something right for a change as there is nothing for me to dispute in that paragraph.

Please show statistical data comparing PC game sales in the past till now. Don't tell me to just 'go ask Loonylion'. The burden of proof to back up your claims falls on you and YOU only, not Loonylion as he didn't propose your claims.

What a vague statement. What exactly do you mean "the focus will only be on technology"? Emphasize this with clarity please.

Your video is laughable given the fact that the speaker in that video is a representative from no other company but Nintendo itself. You do realize that speaker has to do whatever he can to make his company look good, right? Of course he's going to bash other competitors' sales records just to make his own company look good. After all, that's what he's paid to do. Just like how Microsoft representatives have to make their company look good as well, even though they personally hate Windows Vista.

If you ever worked for a company, you would know that the number one golden rule is to make your own company look good, as that would help attract customers. Fast food restaurants, retail stores, and especially industries follow by that rule as that drives customers towards them.

And yes, I watched the video, and the impression I got from Reggie is that he clearly has a gun being pointed behind his back. And behind the trigger is Nintendo's CEO. If you want to present something that support your claims, you need to present something from an unbiased independent source such as a newspaper or a gaming magazine. Not from Nintendo, not from Sony or Microsoft.

What exactly is your definition of a "non/mild gamer"? As I read through your post, it seems to me that you use words with your own interpretations that are not clear to the readers. Again, you need to work on clarity.

Specify the age-range for "little kids" along with examples of games suitable for little kids, and then I might get back to you on this.

Uh, yes it does. Go read a dictionary, please! Second definition.

Huh? You make absolutely no sense at all in that bold-red fragment. And for the record, so far in this topic, it is you with the 'absurd thinking' as most of your statements and claims are entirely void of logic and facts.

How so? If more and more consumers are purchasing PS3s or 360s along with their games, then they are sending a message to both Microsoft and Sony to keep on doing what they are doing whether they like it or not. Same goes with more people buying Wiis giving the approval to Nintendo. That's the way the free market system goes. If a competitor gets wiped out in this process, whether it is Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo, tough shit for them. The free market system is cruel to weak competitors that simply cannot meet or satisfy the consumers' demands.

Let's go back to one of your past statements:

And now, I have a few questions to ask you: how can Nintendo possibly prevent the decline of video games if some people buy Wii consoles only to be entertained for a short time just to put it away and only take it out again for certain occasions? Also, what would exactly indicate that Nintendo is succeeding in their mission to "save video games from decline"?

You can't explain everything because you have no facts to back it up with. That's what is getting you in trouble in this particular debate because you make baseless claims and/or weak statements. As I said, cite sources and don't spout off anymore bullshit.

And no, the "reading between the lines" concept doesn't apply at all to this debate as there is nothing to interpret at all. You have to present the facts as evidence that support your claims.

 

the definition says playing of games, not make a dedication to ones life to gaming or to obsessed with gaming all the time as what the hardcore has been doing with the critque of people putting away their wii console and say those aren't gamers and such. the reference to playing games refers to the entertainment of games.

the hardcore gamers want you to play games and only games, and if that was the logic and you apply it to movies, then that means you only watch movies and only movies nothing else.

the video tells you that video games are at a decline. reggie gives you the stats on about 9 minutes into the video. he mentions that is the stats according to sales charts and without considering biases. but there is a moment where you see a line graph, which is a bias when you consider population growth. in that moment, you can see that gaming has been in deline. when reggie starts talking about the software line up, he's telling you what nintendo is doing to prevent a deline. he's telling you that nintendo is remodeling themselves to futher expand their audiences to prevent a decline. what did sony and microsoft have done to prevent a decline? nothing.

i ask you to ask loony because he's a great source. how? because he's a primary souce and first hand person with experience as he may have lived through it. i have not lived through the pc game era as has because they were expensive machines but he has them and he enjoys pc gaming more then i do. loony talks about having old diskette games, which may show you his age. he can probably tell you that there's been a big change in pc gaming and many don't care.

 

You should have stated THAT as your definition of gaming. That is exactly why I ask you to be more specific and clear in my last post.

From the way you presented your statement:

And now you assume the extreme. Hardcore gamers may play games frequently but not "all the time" unless they are professional competitors that compete for cash prizes for a living. Do Korean Starcraft competitions, and a professional gamer, Fatal1ty ring a bell?

Also, one thing to note is that there is no formal definition of "hardcore gamer". Many people would say that a hardcore gamer is someone who makes gaming their top priority during their free time. By the way, I don't intend to use that website as a legitimate source, but rather an example of one interpretation of the term "hardcore gamer", which you have been throwing around very loosely in this debate.

What exactly is your point regarding this? What you say here makes absolutely no sense at all. CLARIFY THIS!

And here's my problem regarding your video source. All this information comes from Nintendo itself, so some of the information presented by Reggie is arguably questionable since his presentation is geared towards making Nintendo attractive towards the audience.

So go find an independent source that can present similar, if not the same information as Reggie. The credibility of information that come from people that praise and suck their own company's dick is moot.

So? I have lived a bit longer than Loonylion, and have lived through the PC game era myself. I even played on Commodore 64, and Apple IIe computers, got my hands around several Atari machines, and even played games on floppy diskette format. Does that qualify me as a legitimate source of information in this debate? No matter what I say in this debate, I still have to present factual evidence to back up my claims, and Loonylion will have to do the same as well.

That's not to discredit Loonylion's expertise however, as I know he is quite knowledgeable in vast subjects. The point I'm making here is that in debates, you need to present evidence yourself, and not let someone else do it for you. You're the one that's in this debate with me, not Loonylion.

Along with that, I see that you have completely avoided my questions in my last post, yet AGAIN. Please go back to my last post and address my questions. Presenting new arguments while avoiding other people's questions doesn't help you at all.

 

"And here's my problem regarding your video source. All this information comes from Nintendo itself, so some of the information presented by Reggie is arguably questionable since his presentation is geared towards making Nintendo attractive towards the audience.

So go find an independent source that can present similar, if not the same information as Reggie. The credibility of people that praise and suck their own company's dick is moot." hypr

there isn't one. if there was one, nintendo would have had some serious competition with that company. but neither sony nor microsoft has done things to expand and therefore nintendo doesn't have any competition. no one really cares much about video games and i don't know why. the next time someone asks you what're you studying, tell them that you're studying video games. then carefully examine their reaction and you'll be surprised how they consider it like a joke and i guess no one has done the research because they think it's a joke. nintendo on the other hand don't think it's a joke because it's their industry and if their industry dies so do they. this is why nintendo is doing the research, for the better of the company to have a future in video games as video games were at a decline. this is why i tell you to "read between the lines" but you say it isn't important.

 

What if that independent source happens to be Gamespot? How the hell can a gaming company such as Nintendo be in a "serious competition" with an organization that does game reviews (i.e. Gamespot)?

See, this is what I mean by you spouting off bullshit. It's making you look ridiculous.

And by the way, thanks for ceding your argument by stating there is no independent source to quote from. Because Reggie possibly made it up just to make his case towards every sucker in his audience that is dull enough to take things for face value.

Ok, I see. You're not reading my posts entirely at all. Go back and read my last posts. I have already mentioned how both Sony and Microsoft have expanded the gaming market themselves. Idiot.

Doesn't have any competition in what sense exactly? In regards of sales, Nintendo has both Microsoft and Sony beat, but to say that Nintendo has no competition with Microsoft and Sony at all is false. After all, what is the reason behind the price cut of the Wii that followed after the PS3 slim model and the XBox 360's price cuts? Care to answer this question and not dodge the fuck out of it please?

Is this your loose saying here? Quick question Ultra, what kind of forum is this, and what does it pertain to?

Funny thing is that I can word that phrase differently in many ways and get different responses for each one. For example, I can also say "I do research in video game technology" which most gaming industries, including Nintendo do. Notice that the way I reworded you're supposed statement sounded a lot more professional. I can bet that if I went to a lot of random people and told them this as my occupation, I would get a lot more impressed responses than puzzled/confused looks. You obviously have not written a professional resume, have you?

And again, reading between the lines and interpretations are not necessarily factual evidence. The only thing you can get out of such things are possible causes (not absolutely correct however!) and speculations, which are not sufficient enough to back up your claims.

And for the last time, would you please GO BACK TO MY LAST POST AND ANSWER MY GOD DAMN QUESTIONS? If you choose to make a new response with more bullshit, I'll just proclaim that post as the end of this debate as you do almost nothing to support your bullshit statements, besides using biased sources.

 

Okay I read the posts and Hypr meant what I thought.
Only with good english.
Just for the record.

 

if you say "i do research in video game technology" then you're not really studying video games as a whole. but instead you're studying engineering or chip designing for a video game hardware. so it would be looked at differently to people because it isn't the entertainment value of video games that you're studying but engineering. so you wouldn't get weird stares if you say "i do research in video game technology". so yes you can rephrase it but you rephrased it into studying engineering and not video games as an entertainment.

according to hypr, this is why sony won't lose, http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/opinion-why-sony-wont-lose-the-next-gen-war/69618/?biz=1. but sony has done nothing to expand their audiences. read that article and ask yourself, in what ways has sony done to expand their audiences? there isn't a mention of it.

i don't know why because i haven't read nintendo's reasoning. but it was a mistake for nintendo to reduce prices as they're the only company to offer gaming to the expanded market and those expanded market don't have the 360/ps3 to go to but only nintendo. wii sales in japan wasn't up because of the price drop. it was up because of the release of wii fit plus. what wii fit plus did was make those who were holding back to go and buy the wii because now the balance board has more software then before from nintendo [wii fit and wii fit plus]. it was a similar concept with the ps3. there were people who wanted to buy ps3 but they were holding back and waiting for more software until they make the jump. for instance, i bought a ps3 only for resident evil 5 and street fighter 4. other then that, i would not have bothered to buy a ps3. so it was not about the price of the wii but the software it had to offer to the expanded audience, something sony nor microsoft can't get because they're not interested. but to the hardcore and the followers of the hardcore, the wii will now only be seen as having a gain only be the price drop but not the software. i really wished nintendo had not reduced the price.