Definitely waiting until both the price, and the library, are better.

They have a successful, long-running game, and they shut it down... and their big reason for doing so is not lack of interest, or lack of funds, but because it doesn't fit into their grand scheme of things? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the logic in this.

You know what else feels fluid? Water. Doesn't make it more popular to drink, though. It's all about the content, as well as the personal tastes of the user. That's what makes something popular.

Quality is one reason we don't want yearly iterations of games. The more time spent on development, the more they can put into the game. The other issue is with franchise burnout. Too many sequels too soon means eventually people will get tired of it and move on. Just look at what happened with Guitar Hero and other similar games. That whole genre practically killed itself with all the different sequels and versions that were being put out one after the other.

"It’s also ironic that EA brings this suit shortly after launching SimCity Social which bears an uncanny resemblance to Zynga’s CityVille game." Right, because SimCity isn't an established franchise that's been around for years. Oh wait...

This does not bode well for the future of gaming. With the rise of Facebook, and its apps, we've seen the worst that the F2P model has to offer. Shallow games, with even shallower gameplay, all with the option to skip playing it just by paying a fee. Gaming has slowly been moving away from art and entertainment to a more corporate model designed to suck as much money from the player as possible, and it's sad.

Well, at least now the game costs more than the plush birds I've been seeing everywhere.

So we have one company actually refusing to use the touch screen for shortcuts and choosing to just use the gamepad/buttons instead. To be honest, I hope more companies follow this trend. I mean, sure, unique and innovative controllers may be nice, but, sometimes, a d-pad, sticks, and buttons are all you need.

@LordWaffleKing There's a difference, though. On the 3DS, the two screen are smaller and locked together only a few millimeters apart, which makes looking from one screen to the other quick and easy. But with the Wii U, the screen is on the controller, and since most gamers (if they're like me) hold the controller down in front of them, looking from the TV screen to the one on the controller means looking down towards your lap, which actually would be distracting, unless you plan on holding the controller at eye level.

@DinoBuster Agreed. When a game enables you to pay to skip to the end, it stops being a game, and becomes more of a corporate milk-fest.