TheRedSnifit In reply to TheRoyalCrownJewel [2014-05-27 16:26:34 +0000 UTC]

Surprise!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TronmanZ In reply to TheRedSnifit [2014-06-07 07:32:32 +0000 UTC]

He also blocked me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheRedSnifit In reply to TheRoyalCrownJewel [2013-02-16 23:56:07 +0000 UTC]

I thought I was the only person to know those lyrics

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheRedSnifit In reply to tokotiger [2012-12-27 02:42:28 +0000 UTC]

Hidden by Commenter

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-12-27 05:57:03 +0000 UTC]

Hidden by Owner

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheRedSnifit In reply to tokotiger [2012-12-28 05:48:47 +0000 UTC]

That's highly disingenuous. Sega would've been able to fund the game for several platforms by themselves but Nintendo opportunistically swooped in and stole it

Except that isn't what happened. SEGA is broke, so they dropped Bayonetta so they could focus on their "core" franchises (read: Sonic). Platinum started shopping around their prototype and lo and behold, Nintendo picked it up. as such, it's reasonable to assume that there would be no Bayonetta 2 without Nintendo.

And there's a ton of non-exclusive games on these systems that don't play like COD that sell extremely well. Haven't you ever played Assassin's Creed? Bioshock? Dishonored? Mass Effect? You don't have a clue what you're talking about, and as far as I can see, you're just one of those Nintendo fanboys that treats it as if COD and Mario are the only two games that exist. There is a middle ground you know.

There really isn't as much as you think. Take Resident Evil; after CODE: Veronica, Capcom wasn't going to fund anymore, until Ninty stepped in, worked out an exclusivity contract, and (presumably) funded REmake, Zero, and 4. Capcom makes it multi-plat again but realizes that XBots aren't going to pay for survival horror, and we got 5, ORC, and 6.

I also find it laughable that you call the other systems underpowered when your system of choice for the last 6 years has been running on hardware barely more powerful than an abacus.

No, my system of choice has been a PC that will make the next three generations of XBox/PS look horribly out-dated, so I have plenty of room to mock you for your underpowered PC-in-a-box.

Nintendo's set themselves up to be the underpowered one yet again going into the next generation, once MS and Sony release their powerhouses that'll blast it out of the water.

Probably not. You may not realize this, but Microsoft and Sony are more worried about profits than the integrity of their fanbase, and are probably noticing how their last consoles (and the Vita) were horribly outsold while costing them hundreds for every unit sold. So while there's no doubt that they'll be more powerful than the U, the difference most likely won't bedramatic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Vicsor-S3 In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-12-28 16:25:33 +0000 UTC]

God, he keeps replying in text walls

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

tokotiger In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-12-28 08:02:45 +0000 UTC]

Sega would've been able to afford publishing Bayonetta 2 for multiple platforms by themselves if they had simply waited long enough. As I said, Nintendo caught them in a moment of vulnerability, so now it's a misguided exclusive. Wii U just isn't the place for this game. You have to understand demographics, Bayonetta caters mainly to 18-35 year old people who are primarily on Xbox and PS3, which both have the most M-rated titles. Nintendo never gets the hardcore gamer no matter how hard they try. This is because they simply don't realize the massive demographic mismatch between the people who buy their systems (children and casual gamers) and the people who buy games like Bayonetta (hardcore gamers). Having Bayonetta on the Wii U is much like buying a wedding cake, taking a single bite out of it and throwing the rest into an open sewer. A few of the rats might like it but it won't be as popular as the feces and algae they're used to eating. Nintendo has a rough history with M-rated titles, they even admitted it publically. [link] Like I said, they always try at the start of their system's launch to go "our system is totally a hardcore gaming system, really, look at these M-rated games" but it always fails for them.

Your example of Resident Evil 4 is an extremely poor one. Nintendo didn't secure ANY "exclusivity" at all. Capcom announced that they were releasing RE4 for the PS2 before it was even released for the Gamecube. The PS2 version went on to sell more than any single Nintendo version. And then you go on to talk about RE5 and 6 which never even saw the light of day on any Nintendo system, completely contradicting your argument that "Xbots aren't going to pay for survival horror"? Unless you're trying to say that those games somehow aren't survival horror. Either way you're completely wrong. Capcom knows that the people who want RE are mostly on MS and Sony systems because, again, those have the MOST M-rated games.

My system of choice is also a PC but I don't make unrealistic claims about how powerful it is. PC hardware goes obsolete very quickly, it's called Moore's Law, look it up. If your system of choice is a PC then that means it should be illogical to buy ANY consoles, Nintendo or otherwise, since by the time they come out they already have outdated hardware. Of course the PS3 and Xbox are weak and stale, they came out in 2006, they're WAY below today's standards. I don't know why you keep making statements mocking their processing power as if you're replying to a nonexistent argument about specs, because all I've ever been talking about is their games. Your PC will make "the next three generations of Xbox/PS look horribly outdated"? Do you even realize how ridiculous this statement sounds? That's impossible considering we don't even have the level of tech we'd have in 2025. It's like hearing someone in 1992 talk about how he's building a tower that will topple consoles made in 2006. I get that you're making a powerful machine and I understand what PCs of today are capable of. Hyperbole isn't necessary.

Finally, you say there won't be a "dramatic" difference between the next MS/Sony systems and the Wii U... I hope you're joking again because that's also a ridiculous and patently false statement. MS and Sony have every reason in the world to push boundaries with console hardware. If they don't make top-of-the-line systems they'll be left by the wayside by both consumers and developers alike. They have to have a draw and they will in the form of powerhouse machines that can do things that the Wii U won't even hope to imitate. Read this article; it may be a lot of rumors and conjecture but still nonetheless outlines the logical course of action for Microsoft to take. [link]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheRedSnifit In reply to tokotiger [2012-12-28 23:07:52 +0000 UTC]

Holy crap, mate, this is an online forum. I appreciate your concern, but I didn't ask for a sermon. Now, then:

Sega would've been able to afford publishing Bayonetta 2 for multiple platforms by themselves if they had simply waited long enough.

They could have, but everything indicates that they weren't, especially the fact that they gave up the publishing rights and forced Platinum to shop around the prototype.

As I said, Nintendo caught them in a moment of vulnerability, so now it's a misguided exclusive.

Evidence?

You have to understand demographics, Bayonetta caters mainly to 18-35 year old people who are primarily on Xbox and PS3,

You need to understand logic. Bayonetta didn't sell enough copies to convince Sega to fund a sequel. This indicates that it doesn't cater to XBox gamers.

Your example of Resident Evil 4 is an extremely poor one. Nintendo didn't secure ANY "exclusivity" at all.

*Looks at REmake and RE0* They look exclusive to me, bro.

Unless you're trying to say that those games somehow aren't survival horror.

Please don't tell me that you consider 5 & 6 to be survival horror. I love both those games, but even Capcom doesn't call them "Survival Horror" any more. Your homework for tonight is to pick up the Gamecube/Wii remake of the original Resident Evil, and tell me whether or not you'd consider them more hardcore than Gears of War: Zombie Edition.

Finally, you say there won't be a "dramatic" difference between the next MS/Sony systems and the Wii U... I hope you're joking again because that's also a ridiculous and patently false statement. MS and Sony have every reason in the world to push boundaries with console hardware. If they don't make top-of-the-line systems they'll be left by the wayside by both consumers and developers alike. They have to have a draw and they will in the form of powerhouse machines that can do things that the Wii U won't even hope to imitate. Read this article; it may be a lot of rumors and conjecture but still nonetheless outlines the logical course of action for Microsoft to take. [link]

No. The 360 and PS3 cost a ton of money to make, to the point that Microsoft and Sony lost hundreds of dollars for every unit sold; despite this, they got outsold by a console that cost less than $200 to make and had laughable specs. Then, last year, Sony released their PS Vita, and marvel of a handheld. As with the PS3, it completely outdoes, spec-wise, its competitor (the 3DS), lost money for every unit sold (it still does) - and has lost to the 3DS in sales so bad that developers are scared to even touch it. Anybody who doesn't believe that this weighs on the minds of Sony and Microsoft is being naive.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-12-29 02:11:33 +0000 UTC]

If Bayonetta "doesn't" cater to Xbox gamers then it does even LESS to Nintendo gamers. The demographic that would buy a game like Bayonetta is almost entirely centric to Xbox and Playstation. When this game inevitably shits the bed in sales, Sega will get the impression that there is a lack of interest in the franchise, and not that people don't want to buy it on the Wii U. But this isn't their decision, it's entirely Nintendo's call because they're the ones paying for this to be an exclusive. They're willing to sacrifice a great franchise for their generational attempt at getting the hardcore gamers back which always fails.

You're wrong about the fact that Sega didn't fund a sequel, because development on the sequel was already underway before they publically announced that it was cancelled as part of their restructuring. Hence the statement about Nintendo catching them in a moment of vulnerability where they needed more money to make games.

RE0 and REmake are exclusive... so what, who cares? The fact that they drop weak little titles to sate the gamers on Nintendo who can't get the real sequels is irrelevant. I don't play Resident Evil so I really don't care whether or not you term it a "survival horror" or not, that would require me to have an opinion on the series which I don't because it's not my type of game. Go argue about this with someone who cares.

And to your argument about how the next Sony and MS consoles won't have top-of-the-line specs, all I can say is two words: "confirmation bias". That's all your argument demonstrates. Look it up.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheRedSnifit In reply to tokotiger [2012-12-29 06:54:01 +0000 UTC]

You're wrong about the fact that Sega didn't fund a sequel, because development on the sequel was already underway before they publically announced that it was cancelled as part of their restructuring.

So, they stopped funding it because they knew that it wouldn't sell enough to justify the costs. Then, according to Platinum, they started shopping around the prototype, and it was picked up by Nintendo. Unless you can present some evidence that Sega dropped it because of Nintendo, I'm going to dismiss your theory as mere conjecture.

RE0 and REmake are exclusive... so what, who cares? The fact that they drop weak little titles to sate the gamers on Nintendo who can't get the real sequels is irrelevant.

Those were hardly "weak titles" - they had budgets larger than most games at the time, and, along with 4, are widely considered the best in the series, and are generally used as templates by fans for what future installments should be like. 5 & 6 are generally considered the worst of the series, and actually kicked off the whole fad of hating Capcom well before the on-disk DLC fiasco.

I don't play Resident Evil so I really don't care whether or not you term it a "survival horror" or not, that would require me to have an opinion on the series which I don't because it's not my type of game. Go argue about this with someone who cares.

Incidentally, I don't need your opinion, RE5 and RE6 were advertised as "action horror" and "dramatic horror," respectively. To add icing to the cake, the devs of both those games have said in interviews that actual survival horror and other niche genres are unprofitable on XBox/PS3 - and specifically used CoD as the type of game that is. I think that they know a bit more about the industry than you.

nd to your argument about how the next Sony and MS consoles won't have top-of-the-line specs, all I can say is two words: "confirmation bias". That's all your argument demonstrates. Look it up.

Actually, I call it "business sense." It's an objective fact that for the last few generations, the cheap, relatively weak consoles dominated: the PSX, PS2, Wii, DS, and 3DS all outsold the competition by a wide margin. To the contrary, the PS3 and PS Vita were massively powerful, expensive machines (it cost about $850 to manufacture one PS3), but were completely trounced in regards to sales. That's what Sony and Microsoft are looking at - not at the opinions of fans on the Internet.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-12-30 09:45:40 +0000 UTC]

Yeah whatever you say... fact of the matter is Bayonetta sold 1.35 million by the end March 2010, that's nothing to scoff at. In fact its lifetime sales are probably considerably higher. Platinum's last game on the Wii barely managed to break a fifth of that.

Sega cancelled the sequel because they needed GUARANTEED sales which Bayonetta, as a niche 2nd party title, was not able to offer. They needed to focus on their really big names like Sonic and Project Diva, which always guarantee high sales. Then they would've resuscitated Bayonetta 2 once they had enough money. Nintendo stepped in and snatched it up as an exclusive because they didn't have enough to fund it themselves. It's not conjecture, most of your arguments are conjecture if anything. Bayonetta 2 is going to flop because its audience and Nintendo's target audience are a complete mismatch. There's no arguing this and there's nothing that can be done about it.

You call it "business sense", well, your business sense has a tendency to cherry-pick evidence that supports your claims instead of looking at the whole picture. The Nintendo 64 was cheaper AND more powerful than the PSX but it still sold less. The PS2 was the MOST expensive console at the time of its release ($100 more than the Sega Dreamcast), yet experienced high sales numbers even once the more powerful and cheaper Gamecube came out. The Xbox sold out across North America at the time of its launch, even with its absurdly high price point, something the Gamecube wasn't able to do despite being the cheapest console on the market at the time. So your statement that the "cheap" consoles dominated is entirely false considering that the N64 and Gamecube were the cheapest consoles available for their generations despite suffering the poorest sales. The Wii and DS are the only examples where you're correct, and the only reason they sold well was due to their appeal to non-gamers and little kids. With this argument you just confirmed that you're cherry picking your info, thus proving without a shadow of a doubt that you have a huge confirmation bias and little if any business sense at all. The Xbox 720 devkits are already in the hands of developers who are saying it has top-of-the-line hardware which also proves that your "business sense" is laughable at best. It'll be officially revealed in a couple of months, and then I'll pop back here to feed you your humble pie.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheRedSnifit In reply to tokotiger [2013-01-02 06:07:05 +0000 UTC]

Yeah whatever you say... fact of the matter is Bayonetta sold 1.35 million by the end March 2010, that's nothing to scoff at. In fact its lifetime sales are probably considerably higher. Platinum's last game on the Wii barely managed to break a fifth of that.

For a modern console game, that is. That's about 680,000 per console, which is lower than, say, Resident Evil: Revelations, a rated M horror game exclusive for the 3DS. When a mature game on a mobile system that only 22 million people own outsells your mature game on systems that are owned by 50 million each, that's not good. Hell, ZombiU is on track to sell better, and it's a bloody launch title that's more niche and "hardcore" than any XBox game could ever hope to be.

Sega cancelled the sequel because they needed GUARANTEED sales which Bayonetta, as a niche 2nd party title, was not able to offer. They needed to focus on their really big names like Sonic and Project Diva, which always guarantee high sales. Then they would've resuscitated Bayonetta 2 once they had enough money.

"Would Bayonetta 2 not exist without Nintendo? The answer is yes . . . We were looking for a partner to create Bayonetta 2 and Nintendo was a strong, cooperative partner that was willing to create and grow Bayonetta 2 together." ~Atsushi Inaba, executive director at Platinum Games.
Fact is, Sega dropped Bayonetta and likely never intended to make a sequel. Sony or Microsoft could have picked it up, but they apparently saw no future for it on their consoles; as such, Nintendo got it. Unless you have some information that nobody else has, you're lying. Stop it.

You call it "business sense", well, your business sense has a tendency to cherry-pick evidence that supports your claims instead of looking at the whole picture. The Nintendo 64 was cheaper AND more powerful than the PSX but it still sold less.

Except, you're the one cherry-picking data. The PSX wasn't selling much better than the N64 until the late '90s, when they both cost around $150. At that point, the PSX had a clear advantages: it was cheaper to develop for (now ironic given the PS3 and Vita, but whatever), and the games cost about $30 less. It was, to everybody with a brain stem, cheaper.

The PS2 was the MOST expensive console at the time of its release ($100 more than the Sega Dreamcast), yet experienced high sales numbers even once the more powerful and cheaper Gamecube came out.

Intellectually honest people know that the PS2's high sales were almost exclusively due to the DVD player (which was HUGE at the time).

The Wii and DS are the only examples where you're correct, and the only reason they sold well was due to their appeal to non-gamers and little kids.

And again, that's what Sony and Microsoft are going to look at: Sony, who previously held a massive dominance in video game sales, saw the PS3 and Vita sell so horribly that the gaming division as a whole lost profit because they built hugely powerful hardware and sold them at $600 each. You need to realize the significance of this: the Playstation's userbase almost completely abandoned Sony to the point where their gaming division was rendered unprofitable. As in, they lost money. Then, they released the Vita, and saw yet another $45 million loss. To the contrary, Nintendo's profits doubled after the release of the Wii, because they realized that people have trouble justifying spending $600 on a home console. Then, they lost money in 2011 after they - wait for it - tried to sell the 3DS for more than people were willing to pay; after they cut the price to something realistic, people started buying it in droves. Maybe you should try working for a corporation some day, so that you can see what executives actually think about (profit).

their appeal to non-gamers and little kids.

No shit, Sherlock. Every console since the PSX has been geared towards casuals and little kids (or did you think that the old joke that the XBox was geared specifically towards 12-year olds come out of nowhere); serious gamers are on PCs. The only difference is what type of casual game you prefer: linear shooters that play like CoD, or non-linear niche-type games with a focus on exploration like Metroid. I greatly prefer the latter, although that's my own choice, and it's helped along by the fact that I can't get Nintendo games on my PC, not legally at least.

It'll be officially revealed in a couple of months, and then I'll pop back here to feed you your humble pie.

I'd say the same to you, although knowing you you'd block me before I have the chance.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to TheRedSnifit [2013-01-02 07:39:49 +0000 UTC]

It's lower than Resident Evil Revelations? That's not relevant to ANYTHING. You may as well list a bunch of other titles it sold lower than. It sold lower than Tetris, Super Mario World, oh, wait. They're not the same type of game, you're just covering them all under the blanket generalization of "M-rated title". Bayonetta is as niche a title as it gets, not only because of its status as a hardcore beat'em up with high difficulty but also because it features a highly-sexualized female protagonist. Comparing it to any RE title is comparing apples to girders, especially considering that RE is huge (it has its own hollywood film series) and Bayonetta caters to only a handful of people. Considering Bayonetta's extremely small target audience, 1.3 million copies sold is a massive success for it. ZombiU selling more isn't a surprise to anyone because it's capitalizing on the hugely popular zombie trend, which is an easy way to make money.

And as I said, Sega had no money. They'd have to wait for the money to start flowing in before making a game like Bayonetta 2 but Nintendo said "oh no we'll just pay for it for you". It's not the job of Sony and Microsoft to publish games, Sega previously didn't have to rely on such a thing before they came into financial straits.

As for your argument that the PSX wasn't outselling the N64 until the late 90s, that's simply not true, and even if it was true it wouldn't matter because your original argument was that the "cheapest" consoles are always the best-selling ones, I gave several examples where you were wrong and now instead of admitting it you're just pulling every single possible strawman argument out of your ass in an attempt to get a leg up on this conversation. Your argument doesn't account for the success of the other system generations where Nintendo was in dead last despite always being the "cheapest" option, which goes against your statement that the cheap ones always sell. You're basically just going "uh... well they had CD/DVD players, that's different, they don't count!" Also keep in mind that the Wii couldn't play movie discs or music discs of ANY sort, and in fact had substantially less out-of-the-box functionality and usefulness than the PS3 and 360, and yet it still sold more.

Sony kept making absolutely idiotic decisions that amounted to shooting themselves in the foot, such as releasing their console last at a ridiculously high price, losing backwards compatibility and key exclusive titles, having horrible PR, and a crapload of other problems. Even with the Vita they still constantly make stupid decisions. Microsoft adopted the strategy of selling their system at a loss in order to obtain market saturation and regain money through sales of games and peripherals, which unfortunately was held back by the large amount of RRODing systems. Even Nintendo is selling the Wii U at a loss, noting that in order to turn a profit they have to sell a system and a game to each buyer. Even though profit is the bottom line that doesn't mean they always take the strategy of selling their systems at a profitable price. Sometimes they have to sell things at a loss in order to be profitable in the long term, and all three companies understand this; even going into the next generation there's no reason to assume that they'll drop this strategy. You're also treating it as if dropping the 3DS' price was an easy thing for Nintendo to do, they were faced with the prospect of laying off several people but instead took it out on the salary of the higher-ups.

Every console since the PSX has been geared towards casuals and little kids... I don't fully agree with that statement, the most common type of habitual gamer is 35 years old today, meaning that they would already be college-age by the time the PSX came out. The 360 has always catered primarily to men from ages 18 to 40. Also, it's an old stereotype that "serious" PC gamers pirate everything they own, otherwise they have to deal with ridiculous DRM. It should make no difference whether Nintendo games are available legally to you or not. In any case, COD and Metroid Prime both suck immensely, you're a PC gamer who doesn't play Planetside 2, Hawken, MWO or Counter-Strike? Get on my level scrub.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheRedSnifit In reply to tokotiger [2013-01-03 05:42:59 +0000 UTC]

t's lower than Resident Evil Revelations? That's not relevant to ANYTHING. You may as well list a bunch of other titles it sold lower than. It sold lower than Tetris, Super Mario World, oh, wait. They're not the same type of game, you're just covering them all under the blanket generalization of "M-rated title". Bayonetta is as niche a title as it gets, not only because of its status as a hardcore beat'em up with high difficulty but also because it features a highly-sexualized female protagonist. Comparing it to any RE title is comparing apples to girders, especially considering that RE is huge (it has its own hollywood film series) and Bayonetta caters to only a handful of people.

So the fact that there are well over three times as many XBox gamers than 3DS gamers means absolutely nothing?
You also seem confused about exactly who Bayonetta's target audience was. It was designed for fans of Devil May Cry (the fact that they were made by the same guy was pointed out often) and hormonal teenage males.

ZombiU selling more isn't a surprise to anyone because it's capitalizing on the hugely popular zombie trend, which is an easy way to make money.

Excuses. I could just as easily point out that when Bayonetta came out, it was in the same genre as the hugely popular God of War and Devil May Cry series, and much of its promotions (aside from being the manifestation of every teenage male's wet dream) were based around it being created by the same guy who made DMC. It still didn't sell well, though.
The reason ZombiU sold so well is because it was heavily promoted as an old-school survival horror game with a massive difficulty level, and it was made very, very clear that it wasn't your average zombie game; this resounded with Nintendo gamers, in the same way that linear action shooters resound with XBox gamers.

As for your argument that the PSX wasn't outselling the N64 until the late 90s, that's simply not true

Yes, it is. The PSX was outselling it early on - it was released earlier, after all - but it wasn't very pronounced until around '97, when they both cost about the same. At that point, however, PSX games cost around $35, as opposed to $75 for N64 games. Consumers, of course, noticed the price difference.

your original argument was that the "cheapest" consoles are always the best-selling ones,

Incidentally, it wasn't. My original argument was that you can't win the console sale wars based purely on specs, and that Sony and Microsoft would take note and tone down the power to increase the appeal. More specifically, I said that "the power gap won't be nearly as large as it was last gen." And, unless Sony or Microsoft can bring something big to the table (like the DVD player was to the PS2), this is going to require a weaker and cheaper console.

Microsoft adopted the strategy of selling their system at a loss in order to obtain market saturation and regain money through sales of games and peripherals, which unfortunately was held back by the large amount of RRODing systems. Even Nintendo is selling the Wii U at a loss, noting that in order to turn a profit they have to sell a system and a game to each buyer. Even though profit is the bottom line that doesn't mean they always take the strategy of selling their systems at a profitable price.

I don't think I stated it clearly enough. I know that they sell consoles at a loss, but generally they're able to make a total profit, or make up the loss within a reasonable timeframe. Sony's gaming department as a whole did so badly, however, that it (the company) became unprofitable, and it took three years to get the gaming department back on track. Ditto with the Vista: they predicted their gaming department would be able to keep the company afloat, and instead chalked up a $154,000,000 loss in that department alone.

You're also treating it as if dropping the 3DS' price was an easy thing for Nintendo to do, they were faced with the prospect of laying off several people but instead took it out on the salary of the higher-ups.

I don't believe I did. That fiasco was a lesson in making a system too expensive without having something big to make up for it. The 3DS is selling perfectly well now that it's within the price range that people are willing to spend on a mobile system that does little besides play games.

Every console since the PSX has been geared towards casuals and little kids... I don't fully agree with that statement, the most common type of habitual gamer is 35 years old today, meaning that they would already be college-age by the time the PSX came out. The 360 has always catered primarily to men from ages 18 to 40.

I disagree. While there certainly are some decidedly "hardcore" gamers on the consoles, most are either casuals or high school kids who have the time to play hardcore but can't convince their parents to pay for a dedicated PC. To the contrary, somebody willing to pay $800 to build a gaming rig probably plays much more than somebody on a console.

Also, it's an old stereotype that "serious" PC gamers pirate everything they own, otherwise they have to deal with ridiculous DRM. It should make no difference whether Nintendo games are available legally to you or not.

I didn't say that they did. I merely said that I, personally, would rather play console exclusives legally than pirate them.

In any case, COD and Metroid Prime both suck immensely, you're a PC gamer who doesn't play Planetside 2, Hawken, MWO or Counter-Strike? Get on my level scrub.

Hey, Prime is awesome. But anyways, I used to play Counter Strike a long time ago, but I don't anymore. Really, the only "generic" FPS games I play are Crysis and TF2.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tokotiger In reply to TheRedSnifit [2013-01-03 06:46:34 +0000 UTC]

Yes, it does mean nothing. It's a matter of brand recognition in this case, so it's no surprise at all that RE outsold Bayonetta even on a handheld considering that it's a much more recognized brand that delivers exactly what people expect, as well as being relevant to a current trend in games (zombie killing). Bayonetta is a niche title for all the reasons I've listed countless times before that somehow still manage to escape your comprehension. You say it was designed for fans of the original Devil May Cry? The original DMC didn't have a large audience to begin with, it sold 2.5 million units, a little under double of what Bayonetta sold. So if that was their goal, they were, again, successful.

God of War is way more casual-oriented than Bayonetta. It doesn't sell itself on being a high-difficulty action game that requires great skill to beat, it sells itself as being a PlayStation exclusive that pushes the boundaries of the hardware and lets you kill mythical creatures and mile-tall titans in the bloodiest ways possible. It sells itself purely on spectacle rather than the depth of its content, so while it is in the same genre, it isn't for the same type of people.

As for your arguments that Microsoft and Sony will opt for weaker consoles, you don't really have any concrete evidence to back that up, you just have heavily confirmation-biased conjecture like before. You may not be able to WIN the console wars based on specs alone, but you can still sell a lot of units that way. The original Xbox did that and it was relatively successful based on that alone, although not to the same extent as the PS2. I don't know why you're arguing about Sony's gaming department doing badly, if you read my post you'd see that I agree with you on that. Sony keeps shooting themselves in the foot with terrible decisions, a few of which I listed in my last post.

I'm an adult gamer who sees the value in building a gaming PC, but I still play on consoles for a number of reasons. As consoles are the leading development platform in the industry, that means that the PC tends to get shitty, poorly optimized ports of multiplatform games. Consoles are also better at doing local multiplayer due to their streamlined plug-and-play functionality. They generally get the best versions of games without all the crappy anti-piracy measures devs throw in to constantly screw over PC gamers. Also consoles get games first, I'm still waiting on the PC version of Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed which doesn't even have a release date even though the game came out on consoles nearly two months ago. There's a lot of other dedicated adult gamers who have gaming PCs but still play on consoles for the same reasons I do. I play on PC for the great exclusives that can't be done on any other systems but I also reap the benefits of being a console gamer.

Hawken, Planetside 2 and MWO aren't "generic" FPS games. You should try them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheRedSnifit In reply to LightofShelley [2012-05-26 17:28:45 +0000 UTC]

Betsy . . . ?

Oh, hey, it's you. What's up?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LightofShelley In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-05-26 17:36:38 +0000 UTC]

Yeah I was just bored, needed to celebrate my 2 weeks holidays now!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheRedSnifit In reply to LightofShelley [2012-05-26 17:38:49 +0000 UTC]

2 weeks? At this time here, we'd usually have two weeks left of school. Granted, though, we'd have the next two or three months off

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheRedSnifit In reply to theGman0 [2012-05-24 22:44:24 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

theGman0 In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-05-25 01:09:49 +0000 UTC]

?
deviantART muro drawing

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

TheRedSnifit In reply to theGman0 [2012-05-25 01:30:24 +0000 UTC]

I'm not sure why that didn't work.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

theGman0 In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-05-25 01:59:29 +0000 UTC]

for some reason it only works in the journal

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheRedSnifit In reply to theGman0 [2012-05-25 01:27:45 +0000 UTC]

:thumb82683565:

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheRedSnifit In reply to Poopgoblyn [2012-03-18 18:18:12 +0000 UTC]

Fixed

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Poopgoblyn In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-03-20 02:47:21 +0000 UTC]

awesome. Awesome to the max.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheRedSnifit In reply to tysonrss [2012-03-13 11:57:30 +0000 UTC]

Oh, look, the whiny conspiracy boy learned a new word. Maybe someday he'll learn that it's an acronym and is therefore spelled in all caps, or that it ended decades ago.

Let's keep this a secret between you and me, okay? I don't want that fucktard bitching on my page.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tysonrss In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-03-13 15:31:07 +0000 UTC]

Suck my dick you cock-shaped weasel. You gotta do better then that to keep calling me "boy" or "kid" because it doesn't bother me at all lol, I'm just laughing at your stupidity.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheRedSnifit In reply to tysonrss [2012-03-14 00:24:52 +0000 UTC]

Careful what you say, because I think that conspiracy nutter may come around here, and the last thing I need is an insufferable douchebag spamming my page.

Do you know where he lives? Because somebody needs to tell his mommy that he's staying up past his bedtime, if my Israeli superiors don't simply have me kill the whole famy.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tysonrss In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-03-14 00:31:16 +0000 UTC]

Lame.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheRedSnifit In reply to tysonrss [2012-03-14 00:40:58 +0000 UTC]

Sometimes when I talk to the bastard I wonder whether he has Downs Syndrome or schizophrenia: it must be one of them, because there's no way he could be that stupid. I'm guessing schizophrenia, because it's been scientifically proven that living with crazy old cat ladies increases your chance of getting it, especially if you frequently have sex with her, like :devtysonrrs: no doubt does.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

tysonrss In reply to TheRedSnifit [2012-03-14 00:44:37 +0000 UTC]

Do you talk to yourself often? Seek help and fast.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheRedSnifit In reply to tysonrss [2012-03-14 00:48:04 +0000 UTC]

What? How many times did this crazy old cat lady slap him with a rubber chicken as they did it? Hmm, given his apparent brain trauma, I'd say quite a few times. Maybe four-hundred, five hundred times a session? Yes, that sounds about right.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheRedSnifit In reply to scythepuppet [2011-12-08 23:45:28 +0000 UTC]

You deserve it; it was a very nice picture, although "nice" might not be the greatest way to describe a picture of a drowning person. Perhaps "awesome" works better

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

scythepuppet In reply to TheRedSnifit [2011-12-09 06:39:35 +0000 UTC]

Still though, I appreciate it. I make it a policy to ask how people come to my works that they fave, but given that The Drowned Man is my most faved piece and has been mounted pretty much permanently on at the forefront of my gallery, I think I can guess.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TheRedSnifit In reply to Mclandis [2011-12-01 20:22:27 +0000 UTC]

Do you want to see something even more soul-crushing? One of the chemtrailers linked me to a news report "proving" chemtrails - look at the comments:
"The amount of barium reported was off by a degree of 100."
"What teh hell is rong with u evul CIA manR?53; Can you prove they don't exist?"
"iconfacepalmplz:"

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Mclandis In reply to TheRedSnifit [2011-12-04 04:36:23 +0000 UTC]

I also just made the mistake of doing a search for the term "chemtrail" on dA. Where do these people come from?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

TheRedSnifit In reply to Mclandis [2011-12-04 06:17:58 +0000 UTC]

That's something I'd never do, for fear of spending my entire life fighting off paranoid schizophrenics and aspergers people.

Where do these people come from

They come from Wal-Mart.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0