I'd prefer that the fancy CGI trailers are in the game and not just the promo material. The CGI clips in the game were noticeably inferior to the Square Enix trailers and so it would have been better to use the in game graphics.

How can you say "never". There are so many examples listed here.

The original 1986 Electric Dreams game on the C64 was well regarded. The Konami arcade in 1990 was fun too.

If they really wanted to be different, how about combining Ouyas into a super mega Ouya with multiple processors/ram/cpus.

So newer games may require 3 Ouyas

“No entertainment industry can just carry on the way it was. For our industry to thrive and prosper it has to evolve and it has to innovate."

From the pages of "No S#$t Sherlock Weekly"

Well Gamespot. Does this mean you will take the limitations of a particular product into considerations in your reviews? I remember some reviews complained about Assassin's Creed II always on function.

Maybe you need a new rating system: From top to bottom: - The game is so good it should be bought day one and should be kept as a collectible. - The game is excellent and can be bought day one if it's your type of game. You will get a lot of value out of it, but it's not a masterpiece. - The game is fun. It has a few flaws but fans will lap it up. Not worth a day one purchase. Wait for a 1-2 week discount. Play it until bored and then sell it. If unsure, rent to try. - The game is fun in a short/casual way. You will either get bored quickly, or return for short sessions. The game is flawed or buggy. Wait until the game is heavily discounted, or second hand or rent it. - The game isn't a disaster, but only worth a second hand/rent only for those who want to try everything. - The game is a travesty that should die quickly. Most 1-10 grading systems are worthless because a game rate 0-4.5 is likely not worth trying let alone renting or buying. Games that aren't worth trying should be bundled with the same rating.