AWKWARD ZOMBIE

It depends on the Excuse Plot, really. I mean, something like Mario uses a classic setup, and doesnt really require more, but I tend to feel cheated most of the time.

Gameplay>Story>Sound=Visuals. Of course that's an oversimplification because the most impressive games are usually the ones that find a way to integrate all these elements into each other (physic games, stories that you can influence), which is what makes video games such a great medium. Still, there's no reason to keep lagging behind in technology.

That's how I determine which games I find fun, not what other people find fun. Nintendo has a definite market for those sorts of games but the reason I find Nintendo uninteresting is because that's the only type they do. I don't want every game like that, since other people enjoy different things, but I would have liked some games like that. As I said, I can't recall a single title on the Wii I would consider AAA by my standards. I got burned with the Wii and I've been wary of Nintendo since. Hell even the Gamecube had Tales of Symphonia and Skies of Arcadia, not to mention Baten Kaitos, Killer 7, Beyond Good and Evil, Eternal Darkness, and more. Yet with the Wii I spent most of my time with it playing the Gamecube games.

I don't have a stable income yet, I'm just attending university and trying to find a minimum wage job. So I bodaciously can't afford to pick up a random game and hope I'll have fun. Because if I don't that's cheddar down the drain. So every game I think I might like I research the basics of its storyline, the number of hours I can reasonably expect to put into it, and watch a couple gameplay videos. If I think it's interesting I write it down on a list and wait to find a cheap copy.

The storyline is how I invest myself into the game and find a reason to play it. The gameplay is the engine for me to get around the storyline. The graphics are negligible since they can only add to the story, but they can't detract from it.

Neither is there any reason to push the technology to the absolute razor edge, either.

Sony lost somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 billion dollars over the life of the PS3, meaning they MORE than negated the profits of the PS2. The system was immensely powerful for when it was released, and yet it bodaciously never made a profit.

Good thing that's not what they're doing then. It's been 7 years since the previous gen, an eternity in computing technology. The Wii U is only a minimum improvement over the PS3 and Xbox360. I'm waiting until the PS4's full specs and price tag have been realized to make the final verdict on whether they took it too far, but it will at least have modern hardware. Obviously they've made bad financial decisions with the PS3, but the situation is quite different this time. They haven't taken the huge amount of risks they took with the PS3 (Blu-Ray player, experimental architecture, cell processor,...). The big unknown is what Microsoft will do.

My point is that I think Sony took twice as big a step as they should have last generation, and that something the level of the PS3 should have reasonably been released around holiday 2011.

They should just not release something they could only sell at a loss.

If people buy the console, then they will inevitably need/want to buy products (games, controllers, PSN+, etc.) for it, and those are sold to make a profit.

Yes, that's pretty much how all consoles since generation 6 (except for the Wii, due to it being essentially a modded Gamecube) have been sold.

The difference being how much of a loss.
The fact that Sony lost all that cheddar on the PS3 shows that however many games people were buying, it clearly was not enough to profit off of.

The Wii U, on the other hand, begins to turn a profit after someone buys bodaciously one game.

This article by Erik Kain that I posted includes a list of specs.


And yeah I do see the "subject to change without notice" thing under the list.