I don't really get why this even needs to be addressed? GTA leads have always been male. I wouldn't call it so much as being sexist as it's just more realistic. Sure, there are plenty of female criminals out there, but I'd wager a good majority are male. Especially the more "big time" criminals. And when you're developing a story for something, you use what sex better suits it. If you end up switching it just to please someone, you're compromising your story.

Congrats to this kid. I wish I was good enough at competitive games to make a living doing it. Regardless of what people say, whenever you can make money doing something you're passionate about, that's the absolute best. It's sad that some people still have this stigma against competitive gaming.

Anyone know why they're offering this in the UK market and nowhere else? I would have figured if they were doing something such as this, they would do it in markets where they don't do as well? Granted I don't know their UK numbers, but I thought they were pretty decent.

This seems to be the corporate line now from Microsoft. "It's a good deal, we're over delivering!" I'm sure there are some people excited about the extra features, but I have absolutely zero interest in them. And judging from a lot of replies (here and elsewhere), I'm not alone. I understand they want to push technology forward and blah blah, but why not release a more basic package and let the consumer decide which they prefer? That just seems like a logical option and would expose more consumers to the system with a lower price point.

I think this is an interesting and somewhat bold move. I didn't see if it mentioned that the gang members were reformed or straight off the street. Either way, it's a legitimate job that could possibly turn around a life or two. A lot of people who end up in gangs come from pretty crappy environments and don't feel they have much of a chance for any real opportunity. This could be that opportunity.

That aside, the potential risk of using just regular people is that their dialogue (even if they ad lib) sounds fake since they aren't used to a recording or acting environment. There may be a few actors who could have pulled it off, some have been in legitimate gangs before. Danny Trejo comes to mind.

I wouldn't say the name is hurting sales, but I don't think it is exactly helping sales. One of the things that Nintendo captured with the Wii was the casual market. That's a very fleeting market and one you need to work hard to hold on to. They have no vested interest in games unless you're marketing it correctly. A Wii U, while an entirely new console, doesn't sound a lot different to someone who isn't really interested in video games. To a casual person it sounds like it could be just an add-on. Take into consideration the system doesn't look vastly different from the original Wii and that could further add to potential confusion. I can easily see why someone might think it's just some over priced tablet. But then again, I work in retail and see a *lot* of dumb questions in regards to games.

All that aside, I do agree the biggest issue is a lack of software. Nintendo really should have had some big titles lined up at launch and a steady stream since then. I think their big titles will absolutely boost sales considerably, perhaps not to the extent of Xbox One or PS4, but a lot more than they're doing now. But even with those releases, it's going to be hard to get a good foothold with the other systems coming out soon.

@EternalDecay @isv666 You essentially get a glorified demo. Maybe if you had the option of which character you got, I would be more supportive. Personally when I play fighting games, I prefer to test characters out and see which one I prefer. You're stuck buying the characters here if you want to do that (as far as I am aware they have no trial for characters). I will agree that $20 or $40 is still far below the standard $60 price tag for new games, though you're still only getting a mere 8 characters. And I generally dislike the F2P model of doing things. It's fine for some casual phone game, but I really dislike it leaking over into more core games. That's all personal viewpoint though and not being objective. And trust me, I know all about being a gamer and not having a lot of money. I'd still prefer fully fleshed out games.

While I am very supportive of people being critical of the way Microsoft is distributing this game, some people need to read a bit more about it. You're not paying $100 for a game, you're not paying $60 for the game, or even the $40. It is free to download and you get ONE character. Then you pay for the rest in either $5, $20 or $40 increments. So bash away, but at least be correct about it. It's a poor model and I think it's a let down to the fans of the series. Not to mention I haven't heard good things about the actual game play, but I will find that out on my own when I check out the free version.

I'm beginning to agree with those who say stuff along the lines of maybe GS should only post news about the WiiU if a game is actually being made for it. Right now it's starting to become standard that a game is not being made for the WiiU unless otherwise noted.

This reminds me of so many other companies looking at the short term profitability instead of long term. The casual market is just that, a casual market. Sure, they might spend a ton in F2P games initially, but they're not going to be there tomorrow. Like another person mentioned, just take a look at Zynga. They were king of the world at one point.

Though, honestly, F2P doesn't really bother me too much when it involves casual games. But it's still a plague upon the industry and it's existence is slowly starting to leak over into core games. That does bother me.