Unlike some people (ahem), I'm not immediately kneejerk-against anything that could be considered a gimmick. I also had a vaguely okay experience with some Google Cardboard apps on my mobile. It's just that, like pretty much anything on mobile that isn't a port of an old console or PC game, it doesn't hold your attention for long. I'm crossing my fingers that console VR will be good in a handful of years, when developers have time to experiment with it.

As an answer to that poll? "Whichever one seems to support the most good games when I have the cash," I guess. I'll mark myself as being on the fence. Why anyone would sit on one of those uncomfortable things is beyond me, though!

I'm having flashbacks to the Sega CD and 32X. Dear God, please no. Not again. I escaped 'Nam, dangit, I don't want to go back!

Better remasters than crappy cash-grab shovelware.

I don't think they'll "bow out." People overestimate how badly the Wii U has been doing--it still has a fairly strongish following among longtime gamers and still holds some significant appeal with the casual crowd. Not doing as well as the competition isn't the same thing as not doing well at all. What's more, Nintendo is still pretty much the sole dominating force in the handheld world--the PlayStation Vita is its only real competition and it's practically being ignored now, even by Sony. The NX is purported to be an attempt to combine handheld and console gaming, which is a smart play, especially for a Japanese company: mobile and handheld gaming is pretty popular over there due to their commute-heavy, not-as-many-televisions-per-house culture. That was probably a significant factor in their decision to make a console that had a screen on the controller.

The real question is whether or not the NX will place them on the technical cutting edge again, and whether or not that would bite them in the butts if they do fail to grab a strong following with that console. Part of the reason the Wii was so lucrative was that the console itself sold at a profit, as opposed to the PS3 and Xbox 360 both selling at a loss (under the assumption that game profits would cover the difference). I'm actually not sure whether the same holds true of the Wii U, although I'd guess at no, considering the hideously expensive GamePad is a part of the package.

The problem is people are still trying to act like the mother-effing console wars are still a thing when both top-of-the-line consoles have the same things for the most part and PC does a lot of it potentially better (if you can shell out for the right parts and be tech-savvy enough to not fry them once they're in your rig). Console fans can't let go of the Good Old Days when having a specific console was really a gateway to a LOT of very specific good games. It hasn't really been that way since the PlayStation 2, GameCube, original Xbox, and (sort of) the Dreamcast, though. The industry is less platform-segregated now. Choosing between consoles just ends up being a case of choosing between a relatively small handful of games that other platforms don't have. Arguably, the PC is the choice among the three with the best exclusives.

I'm not counting the Wii U in that statement because the darn thing's so far off in its own little world at this point that it may as well not be competing with the others in the first place. Maybe the NX will change that. Maybe not. We'll see.

Gonna jump on the Gran Turismo 6 answer. That's always sort of been that franchise's schtick, trying to be realistic racing. I remember it being fun, but I'm more of a Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing Transformed kind of person, so I might not know of a better one if it exists.

Or, you know, because hyperbole exists. That's a thing, too.

A good 80% of games developed for every gaming platform in every generation are games that contributed nothing to either their generation or the industry at large. A game doesn't have to push the industry forward to be good. That was true even before the question of re-released and remasters came up.

I'm just happy if I can play an older classic without having to deal with it looking ugly and blurry/jaggy on an HD flatscreen. It also means I have a way to legally buy those games while actually supporting the publisher and/or developer, as opposed to some random shlob on eBay.

The best anyone can ever do with any kind of intrusive mental complexity is try to work around the things that get in their way as best they can, so taking a break might be the answer. There's virtually no possibility of guaranteeing flawless play on your first run through a game, so making peace with that to whatever extent that you can is the only way to really enjoy yourself. Although if you channel that desire to play neatly and perfectly into speed-running, it might prove to be a strength instead of a hindrance.

It's only in recent years, with the advent of large but relatively cheap hard drives and small storage devices that can store gigabytes upon gigabytes of data, that companies have taken to keeping everything archived. Whether it's television and film, or video games and computer-generated assets, companies tended to destroy, throw out, or delete the raw materials they used to produce something when they thought they'd never need it anymore. The idea that these games might be remastered at a resolution that would have blown gamers' minds back in the CRT TV days probably never occurred to them, either. Considering how many times this old policy of dumping "unneeded" stuff out has bitten the entertainment industries in the butt in this age of constant remasters and re-releases, though? Yeah, companies hold onto their stuff now. Most of the time.

It wasn't that long ago that a simple 32 GB SD card was considered an expensive luxury, so I sort of understand why this is. Nowadays, storage options that cost an arm and a leg ten years ago can be bought for an easy ten or fifteen bucks, though. Most well-monied companies have more terabytes of available storage than they'll probably ever need.