more popular? yes..more popular than consoles? unlikely lawlessx

PC is more popular worldwide.

In America though.....nah probably not. PC isn't advertised enough.

Years ago I had a few friends who were pretty interested in handheld gaming. It was quite nice to discuss handheld games with them, and at some points play together.

But they just don't care anymore. Heck, even I don't really care much anymore, but that may have to do with nobody else caring as well. We all just play our PCs now, and if we want to do multiplayer we just bring our PCs or laptops to each others house, or play online.

But I would enjoy if maybe one or two of them would invest in a handheld with me once they get some games of course.

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

I love how people here complain about the market being full of the same games and then freak out whenever something new comes and then label it as "casual" for being different. It's hilarious. :lol:

N30F3N1X

Using gimmicks to attract costumers rather than games is frightening, not hilarious. Casual refers to a very specific set of pecularities. Change is needed to drive gaming forward, bad change drives it backwards.

How is something like the Wii U tablet considered bad change?

It has all the qualities of a normal controller, but with a big touch screen in the middle that could potentially add even more to your games.

It could improve sports games with an in hand playbook, or you could play a four player co-op game where everyone can go off on their own branching path via their own screen, and maybe even strategy/mmo games could become viable as a touch screen allows far more buttons, and precision than a limited game pad.

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"][QUOTE="rumbalumba"]

ignorance at its finest.

keeping servers up costs hundreds of millions?

i must be in 1921 or something.

rumbalumba

again, ignorance. WoW servers upload and download data every second besides maintenance. also, just because XBL has more members does not mean anything at all. CoD, etc. use their own servers aka servers put up by Activision, EA, other companies so all the data that stream on your online play are mainly on other servers, and it's not like ever y minute someone downloads a game or a demo. member data are only in megabytes and that's with encryption.

stuff is not cheap but hundreds of millions to maintain XBL? ROFL. when did 360 use dedicated servers for its games? 2010? that's like 5 years after Live took off. not only does M$ own 203 first-party titles, but they only used dedicated servers on those games recently. before 2010 those games used peer-to-peer which meant you used your own bandwidth to make and maintain an online game.

people these days are just pathetic.

Since when do either XBL or PSN extend their services to only online gaming? As if that's the only thing that'd cost Sony or MS money is having dedicated servers

http://www.1up.com/news/hirai-psn-losing-money-turn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Speaking toReuters Japanthis week (viaHachimaki), Sony Computer Entertainment President Kaz Hirai described the PlayStation Network as "in the red" but believed that it would turn a profit during the next fiscal year.

According to the report, PSN sales during the 2009 fiscal year added up to 36 billion yen (approx. $434.3 million USD). That number "nearly doubled" in 2010. However, Hirai said "we're aiming to enter the black during the 2011 fiscal year." Furthermore, he projected that PSN sales would reach 300 billion yen ($3.6 billion) in the 2012 fiscal year. He cited the number of registered PSN accounts (60 million as of November) as evidence of the service's growth."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read the big, bolded part of that article.

PSN sold $434.3 million worth of content in 2009. That number nearly doubled in 2010, and yet PSN still wasn't in the black.

It wasn't in the black last year either, but that could have been attributed more to the PSN fiasco than anything else.

Point is that PSN is not in the black even when making "nearly double" $434 million.

That's HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Because they are charging you to use your own bandwidth? It's like McDonalds charging you to eat that sandwich you made at your own place.rumbalumba

That's a bad analogy.

It doesn't cost McDonalds money if you eat a sandwich at your house.

Meanwhile it costs MS and Sony hundreds of millions of dollars to keep PSN and Xbox Live up and running.

ignorance at its finest.

keeping servers up costs hundreds of millions?

i must be in 1921 or something.

Keeping PSN and Xbox Live up does cost hundreds of millions.

There's a reason the PSN has yet to be profitable for Sony.

Looks meh. Could be better implemented.

Gibsonsg527

It's still in development.

I don't get why everybody's hating on it.

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

A single MMO is more expensive a year than paying to play all Xbox games online..

Quit qqing

pelvist

With MMOS you pay for full time server maintenence and continuouse development from a dedicated dev team.

Does XBL not have full time maintenance, and a dedicated team?

[QUOTE="SW__Troll"]

[QUOTE="juno84"]

I sometimes forget that consoles are a full generation behind in online play. XBL is matchmaking. Matchmaking cost nothing over a decade ago and has no reason to cost anything today.

juno84

XBL is a service that has a lot more features than just online play.

At it's heart, it's a matchmaking service. All the bells and whistles still shouldn't cost anything. The fact of the matter is, you can't play play online with out the service and are forced to pay for rudimentary matchmaking. You are paying for the priviledge to connect to other users with your internet connection. XBL was a gamble to see if people would pay a subscription fee for an online front end, and apparently they will (and will even defend it!).

I'm confused because despite me telling you XBL has more features than just online play you still replied saying it doesn't.

I sometimes forget that consoles are a full generation behind in online play. XBL is matchmaking. Matchmaking cost nothing over a decade ago and has no reason to cost anything today.

juno84

XBL is a service that has a lot more features than just online play.

[QUOTE="Goyoshi12"]

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

If only horror was that easy in video games.
In a film, the director can tightly edit it so you never see the monster. In Amnesia, I know there is nothing there. It doesn't scare me the slightest that a puddle is killing me. I'm sorry.

OB-47

That's fine, it's your opinion...but your logic has quite a few holes.

I mean, "In a film the director can tightly edit so you never see the monster" this is true...who's to say that they never did the same thing for Amneisa? The whole point is that you don't see the monster and when you finally see it, it's too late.

The unknown is a beast that has haunted many a novels and movies before and in Amneisa...it is put to it's fullest extent.

But in Amensia, I know it's a game right? So I know that they didn't want me to see what was in the water right? So I know theres actually nothing in the water. Dieing via invisilbe thing in water isn't exactly scary in a game atleast. It could be done maybe, but Amensia didn't really pull it off for me in that example.

The monster was the least scary thing that game had to offer.

It was the atmosphere that got me. If you can get yourself fully immersed into the game while walking around the torture chambers, and you begin to see the images of what happened there as you read about it, and hear the sounds it will eff you up.

My mind may still be a little twisted.