At the risk of getting sucked into a vortex of bullshit, I'd just say that the original question is not correctly phrased. The question isn't about which company caters to so-called "SJWs"; I think the question is which company actively seeks to increase representation of various types of people within their games.

And honestly, I'm not really sure which of those I'd put in that category. I think most of the industry is trying to create more diverse characters in general. Off the top of my head, Sony comes to mind as a fairly big proponent of this - especially if you think about their support of games starring female protagonists.

For me it really depends on the game.

In some cases, I'll pre-order a game or I'll buy it as soon as it comes out - this is rare, and usually only for certain specific franchises I follow (for example, I picked up the collector's edition of Breath of the Wild without question).

In other cases, I'll be interested in a game but not enough to buy it as soon as it first comes out. I'll still buy it "new"...but maybe a few months after it was first released.

Other times, I'll just pick up a few games I'm interested in and, frankly, they'll get added to my backlog. I still have a few brand new games sitting there which I haven't yet played, and which I might get around to at some stage. I bought them because I want to own them - again, it kind of depends on the franchise. :-)

Another factor is budget. If I had a very limited budget, I would rarely ever buy a game brand new on the day of release; in the past, I used to buy a lot of second-hand games, and for some other games I'd wait for sales and stuff. Luckily I don't need to worry about that these days, so I can largely buy what I want.

Within this list, I own:

• PS4 Pro
• Xbox One S
• Switch
• New 3DS (a couple of these)
• PlayStation Vita
• Wii U

I own others that aren't on this list, including a lot of retro stuff. But of the above consoles, my most frequently played are Switch and PS4 Pro.

It depends if you are referring to review scores or community responses. But right now, the big example I can think of is Metal Gear Survive. I haven't finished it yet, but I went in with an open mind...and although it's certainly not a 10/10, it's a hell of a lot better than you'd expect given the outrageously negative reaction to it. I am left wondering if the game will eventually received a fairer reception later down the track - it might take time for the generalised angst to settle down.

You've fought over this issue, and you're still wrong. Performing a mea culpa over a fairly obviously inaccurate claim seems odd to me.

"Every game for it is better played elsewhere unless you buy it just for the portable experience" - that's really a red herring, and has nothing to do with whether or not the console is portable or hybrid. What does "better elsewhere" actually mean, anyway? How are you measuring that?

I recently saw a survey which showed that among the Switch player base, it's almost 50/50 in terms of people choosing to play in handheld mode or TV mode. So, clearly, a lot of people do use the Switch as a "home console" at least some of the time. For me personally, I'd say I play it as a home console about 80% of the time, with 20% being for handheld mode.

It seems to me that you're conflating several different points. Whether or not the console is a hybrid or a portable has nothing to do with whether or not certain games are better or worse on Switch versus other platforms (and again, what do you mean by "better" or "worse"?)

I don't think there's a clear answer about which is better overall. Although they are some obvious similarities, they're also remarkably different. Dark Souls 3 is going to be much more valuable to you if you've played other games in that franchise, and therefore have some understanding of the context and background lore. Sure, it can be enjoyed without that understanding, but it's certainly enhanced by it.

Nioh, in some ways, is a bit more niche than Dark Souls 3, despite what I just said about context. Its medieval Japanese setting is lovely, but also highly repetitive - so I feel like you have to really be "into" that setting to avoid getting bored by the repetition. I also think that the combat system is quite different; I'm not sure if I'd call it better or worse, just different. I personally found Nioh to be a tougher game than Dark Souls 3, but that could be because I'm just used to Dark Souls as a series.

Anyway, you'll certainly get more variety in DS3 and I think the opportunities for mayhem around PVE/PVE are a bit more varied and interesting in DS3 than in Nioh. I guess, ultimately, it just depends what you're interested in.

@PSP107: I'm not sure exactly how many at this point. It's definitely degraded over time, as you'd expect. But I have to charge the controller pretty regularly (say...once a week or so). It's not a big problem, it's just a downside of the way the controller is designed.

But I'm prepared to put up with that because it's so damn comfortable/functional. :P

Interesting. I think the PS4 controller is the best one Sony has ever designed. I don't like the sharp angles of the older versions, nor the older D-Pad, nor the imprecise/rubbery shoulder buttons.

The biggest issue for me with the PS4 controller is the battery life. It's pretty abysmal.

People have been saying this for years. It's always been a short-sighted view that fundamentally misunderstands Nintendo as a business. Only last year I was debating numerous people who assumed that NX/Switch would be a failure and that Nintendo should go third-party. That clearly worked well for them.

The first PlayStation game I owned was Final Fantasy VII. I still have very fond memories of playing that for the first time. :-)