@ the_requiem I was also thinking that it might be an April Fool's joke, but I've been seeing articles like this even before today. Yes, people do buy systems before they're proven, but delaying the purchase won't make Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony push out better games during their next launch. If that were true, Nintendo would never launch a system without a new Mario game on day one. Sony would have had GT5 (at least the prologue) or GOW, and MS would have had Halo done for the 360. (also, I'll admit that Nintendo failed us on this one. The Wii at least had LOZ:TP) BTW, I almost did the same thing for a PS3 when GOW3 was released, but my brother moved in and brought a PS3 with him.
Is it just me, or can we just substitute "3DS" with "PS3/360", switch out the games, and pretty much get the same type of articles we read a few years ago? The days when a console/handheld is released with a killer title hasn't really happened since Halo, and that's only if you were a Halo (or rather FPS, because the series had just started) fan. Fact is, if we all waited until the games we wanted were released to buy a system, they'd stop making the system by then. I see the point the article is trying to make, but that's it. Tom, just tell me how long you waited to buy a 360/PS3/Wiii, and then we can talk.
Nintendo said it best in an interview a few months ago. To paraphrase a bit, they pretty much said they are in competition with everybody for time. There's only 24 hours in a day, and at the end of it, you're going to have spent more time on one system than another. I never bought an iPod to play games (mine is to old anyways, but...), but when i'm bored, I will spend a good half hour or more playing that crappy guess the song game on my older iPod. If I had spent that time on a Nintendo system or the 360, I probably would have seen something that I wanted to purchase later, or downloaded something right then.
i like this article a lot. It's interesting that Justin and Jane have differing views on whether the 3D helps in Pilotwings. I've read other reviews of the game that support Jane's opinion, so I'm wondering if Justin is just one of those guys that isn't really into the system all together. No offense Justin.
When it comes to battery life, all I can say is this: would you really want to watch a 3D movie for more than 3 hours? 3-5 hours is pretty crappy, but in the end I think it's more beneficial, even though that wasn't Nintendo's point.
As cool as 3D might be, I still can't justify buying another big screen and 4 sets of glasses. When can buy a 42" 3D for the same price that a regular 42" sell for right now, I'll be in.
When they said consumers buy only 203 games per year, i'm just going to automatically assume they meant "New" games. I used to buy more, but renting a great game once, then waiting about a year for the GOTY year edition has saved me a few bucks. The problem I have with DLC is having to be online to get it. At home, I'm safe, but if I take my system with me on an extended trip to the In-laws, connecting can be a hassle.
@ Bookerjj2000 I agree with you to an extent. The FF series is a bigger story (to longtime fans) because it's a prime example of how a company can be "bought". The move from Nintendo to Sony caused an uproar back in the day, but not so much as the internet wasn't as big as it is now. Just look at the arguments of FFVII being the greatest FF ever, notice how many people list 4 or 6, or how the arguments can pretty much be summed up as long time fans vs fans of the series only after FFVII? Even FFXIII is causing fans to choose sides. Halo, on the other hand, was a great game that could have debuted on the PC, but came along as one of the best attempts of a FPS on a console since GoldenEye. Everyone wanted to play it with a friend, and that was before the industry tried to tell us we wanted online Co-op instead of split screen. I won't try and take anything away from Halo (even though I admit i wasn't a fan of the game for a long time), but FF should have some mention here. Then again, since FFXIII just came out, there have been 20 million articles about the FF series leading up to it's release, we already should know how "great" the series is.
Not going to read all posts, but setting the PC at max settings is a little unfair. If everyone playing on PC could produce those graphcs, the article woud be more than pointless. We already know that water's wet and that fire's hot. Give us a cost based scenario, where the base cost of the test PC is around $600. Since this is pretty much written for gamers, they know that they can build a "decent" (not extraordinary) rig for that price. Even though the PS3 has come down in prce, that's at least it's close. Because you can't really expect me to belive that everyone with a PS3 has a 1080p tv when I know of many who don't. Then again, it's only a game.
FallenOneX's comments