What I said makes sense when you think about it. It's too early to say how port support will play out for the Wii-U. Reading more into Randy's comment than what's really there isn't the smartest move right now. That's been my whole point.
Let me guess, you thought Randy Pitchford of Gearbox was lying when he said Wii U was more powerful than PS3 and 360?
So you completely ignored all the times I defended the Wii-U against the idiots that tried to make this claim? I have said from the beginning, it's not a question of whether or not the Wii-U will be more powerful than the PS360, it's a question of how much.
Except I just defined to you for our conversation a massive leap is one where the Wii U is incapable of receiving the same games as PS4 or Xbox 720.
You're completely missing the point, it's completely possible to provide a good leap in the PS4/720 while the Wii-U still receives downsized ports. It all depends on how big of a gap, how much of an investment is necessary, and if the sales on the platform support said investment.
This all seems to be above your head, so I'm just going to move on from this point.
Microsoft lost a lot of money too on the Xbox and only recently began to profit off of it.
No, they've been profiting for years, so you're wrong again.
Also, yes MS lost a crap load of money with the OG xbox. That's what happens when you slap your console together in 18 months with no experience in the console hardware business. There are legit reasons why MS lost as much as they did with the OG xbox, yet they proved with the 360 that the same losses do not have to happen again.
So basically this little quote right here is another example of how you don't know what you're talking about.
So you enjoy being an asshole? That's cool to hear. If you're going to be one at least try to be an insightful one, like Amir0x.
Read and comprehend my posts, maybe then you'll learn something. I don't post things to be an asshole, I post things because that's the way it usually is in the real world. Not my fault if you have an issue with reality.
Okay, I'll bite! How does a system simultaneously become a multi-media machine and a game machine?
*sigh*
I'll put it in a way that you'll hopefully understand. If MS or Sony wish to include a feature to record gameplay while you're playing the game, it's going to require resources. If MS and Sony wish to have background functions running in the OS while you're playing a game, that's going to require resources.
You started it first, bucko. Just calling it as I see it.
I didn't start with the insults. Calling you clueless is an observation of your posts since they were indeed way off base.
If we were talking about the World and I said the ocean was purple, I would hope someone would call me out on my ignorance. It's the way people learn.
Again, I've already defined what my parameters of "massive leap" are and that meant Wii U won't be receiving the game at all. So pretty much you've been arguing with me all this time just to come to the same conclusion!
So you're moving the goal post to match your parameters instead of admitting that your accusations about me were incorrect?
So basically "Why does PS4 and 720 have to be a massive leap forward over current generation?" "Because money." is your argument?
Basically yes. Not sure if you realize this, but developing and launching a console costs billions. Does it make sense for MS and Sony to spend billions just to launch a console marginally more powerful than the 360 and PS3?
Honest question here.
It wasn't much of a waste of money for Nintendo!
It's an interesting situation for both Sony and Microsoft, because I think that the best option for creating a healthy environment for third parties to make profits would actually *be* to go for the 'modest leap' system; be the Xbox to the Wii U's PS2. I believe the average third party - not the wealthy ones - would benefit from an environment in which they could consolidate and build on their experience from this gen rather than having to make a further leap.
...but you're completely right, they'd have to *justify* such a system to their audience. Nintendo managed to do so thanks to the Wiimote, but I don't really see quite how Sony or Microsoft could do so, which does suggest that the only realistic option for them is to go for the huge leap.
There is a third interesting question, which is everyone is talking in terms of the Wii U being the outlier - but it has crossed my mind that it's possible that only *one* of the two would make the huge leap. What happens if there's a *more* powerful outlier? There's no issue with it being able to run things, of course, but multiplats aren't going to take advantage of that power.
Exactly, you get what I'm talking about. Nintendo could afford to do it because they bet on the Wiimote. MS and Sony likely won't have such a thing in their back pocket. Also neither are likely to want to give up that hardcore market, so releasing a system that's competitive with performance is almost a must. And honestly, just because the power is there, that doesn't mean the more mid-sized developers have to break the bank to use it in the most wildest of ways.
If there's a more powerful outlier, there's a chance it could become the lead platform while the other two or one receive down ports. It all depends on development tools, 3rd party sales, publisher requirements, etc.
. There is no reason why any of those games cannot look phenomenal on this machine , when/if they ever come out that is. The balls on Nintendo´s court. I don`t believe that Pikmin Or New Super Mario Bros games have ever been about showing off what Nintendo can do graphically speaking. So dont judge Nintendos graphical ability on those two games.