• closer2192 - January 8, 2013 2:33 p.m.

    Right now I think Nintendo has the lead, but not insurmountably so. If Sony has a better release than last go around and manages to get Vita semi-useful, they might be able to steal it away. Especially if their upcoming first party content delivers.
  • gryzor - January 8, 2013 5:16 a.m.

    This is a rant. Whoever wins (whatever that means) gamers lose. Competition between sony and microsoft is in my opinion hurtful to quality of games and identity of console gaming. There's little to set this two products apart with a dozen exlusives from which only a few might appeal to any given gamer. By quality i mean optimized controls for controller you are using and constant 60 fps with no glitches which will never be the case when games are shared and are not written for particular piece of hardware. Wipeout hd was a reason i went with ps3 and not 360, which i have no intention of buying because most of the time it does the same thing as sony's hardware. Wii was something different and i bet there are many people who own either ps3 or 360 and wii. I recently played Metroid Prime and the first thing that struck me was how fluid the game was. Not only did it not drop frames under any circumstances but move camera/pointer all you want and the image stays as sharp during this movement as it is when you don't move. No screen tearing at all. Do i get the same feeling playing ps3 games? As a consumer back in the days you paid for a boxed game that was a complete product often manufactured up to high standards. What happens to my ps3 collection when updates are no longer available, what happens to my disc of Bayonetta which is my favourite game of this generation? It becomes not worthy of the price i paid for it at best and unplayable at worst. And the bottom line: DLC. I remember driving around in Burnout and coming to a place where i was invited to psn network so i could pay if i had intention of going further down the road. In the latest Need for Speed if you want the fastest cars you don't unlock them with beating lap times, you have to pay for them extra. That's plain ripping off a customer. I think that's enough... for now.
  • sxh967 - January 8, 2013 6:46 a.m.

    At least you only pay around $2-3 for a smartphone game before it tries to get you to make in-app purchases. I don't dig iAP (but enough people do that it won't matter), but if I had to pay $60 for the game and THEN pay more, I wouldn't be a happy bunny!
  • gryzor - January 8, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    Yes, but this price tag is a limitation in itself. Smartphone games in most cases will be produced at low cost because of the risk factor. There's thousands of apps to choose from so the developers can't be sure that their game will be noticed in the sea of another titles let alone be able to predict any number of sales. A game enthusiast will know almost about every AAA game released. With apps it's not possible because of the large numbers in which they are made. Another thing is that smartphone user expects to be charged a few dollars. Ace Attorney on iphone from the business point of view just didn't make sense for that reason. it seems that console/pc games and smartphone games are as of now different markets.
  • brickman409 - January 7, 2013 7:07 p.m.

    the next console generation looks like it is going to be interesting.
  • Cyberninja - January 7, 2013 6:56 p.m.

    I have to give it to Nintendo since Sony is letting Vita die right now, and Mircosoft only has one really big expected game coming out. Also if they both announce consoles that outdo the wiiu in everyway I don't think they will be cheap enough for the average person because the Wiiu already isn't cheap but the competition will be worse, I see another Wii/PS3 or 3DS/Vita situation happening. So what I am saying is that Nintendo just can't mess up to win this year and anything really big seals the deal.
  • ParagonT - January 8, 2013 6:56 a.m.

    What made the Wii U more expensive was the Wii Pad controller, but Microsoft and Sony doesn't have to mess with that, so that's more money that can be relocated elsewhere. But yeah, I will say that they will be more expensive, but if people were that concerned about spending that much money, then why would they buy a Wii U (or console in general) that you must then allocate/sink even more money into for games? People I believe tout that they are on this strict budget, when that's far and few in-between in reality. If your that tight on money (not speaking to you, but for those who won't admit) then gaming is the worse money sink of a hobby to have besides Mcdonalds.
  • Cyberninja - January 8, 2013 5:59 p.m.

    Speaking for me personally I say Wiiu was at my cutoff and that is because it is something different from other stuff and at this point I am not sure if it will be my many system or a companion system like the wii is to my ps3, as long as sony doesn't pull another $599 us dollars I may be able to get a ps4 but I will still try waiting until it is around $400 at most
  • dcobs123 - January 7, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    Ehhh... didn't really care much for console exclusives this year. I guess the PC had a steady stream of niche games but that's always been true. If there had to be winners then I'd say third-party and indie developers.
  • AqueousBoy - January 7, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    There's also another side to things for Sony - the company, as a whole, has seen declining profits. They lost over $6 billion in 2012. 2013 could be a very bad year for them.
  • Tjwoods18 - January 7, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    I don't see the new gears of war or the next Halo making that big of a splash. The last of us and Beyond Two souls, on the other hand, will because they are generally somthing new, newer than Gears and Halo anyway.
  • BladedFalcon - January 7, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    Yet Halo and GoW sales are way superior than those of Uncharted and Heavy rain, the spiritual predecessors of the two games you mentioned. Certainly, Sony's new IPs sound more exciting for those seeking something different, but that doesn't translate automatically into sales. So, much as you might want it, compared head to head, it's very likely MS's exclusives WILL make a bigger splash, at least in term of sales.
  • Tjwoods18 - January 7, 2013 8:38 p.m.

    I meant "splash" as being intuitive, articulate, and inspirational in terms of gameplay. Cinematic Gameplay adds another level of that "splash" that Gears and Halo are simply unable to perform. I mean, what am I going to find out in GOW:J that I do not already know? The same can be said for Halo. You can only bring a franchise so far until its initial pizzazz comes to a halt. COD, Assassins Creed, GOD of War, Gears, Halo, Silent Hill, and so many more titles are currently going through this process.
  • BladedFalcon - January 7, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    I don't think you can clearly define winners anymore. At least, not in the state the industry is in currently. I mean... Who do you guys would say won 2012? I find it odd that you're already speculating on "winners" for this year, when I don't even think there's an easy way to define who won this past year to begin with. That being said... I have no idea who could "win" between the PC and the big 3 console manufacturers, but I will be very surprised, and very sad if it the clear winner turns out to be apple.
  • sxh967 - January 7, 2013 7:38 p.m.

    Why are you so worried about Apple becoming the go to company for gaming? I'm sure people would've said the same about Sony before the Playstation, or Microsoft before Xbox, but look where we are now!
  • BladedFalcon - January 7, 2013 8:27 p.m.

    Because I don't Apple? And because Microsoft and Sony never became big in gaming without them actually TRYING and making an effort to appeal to gamers. Only reason apple is in this list to begin with is because cheap, depth-less games are selling a shitton on their devices, not because they are actually creating a rich, quality market for games. Not to mention, both the i-phone and the i-pad are overrated pieces of hardware with closed and inflexible software that limits the user's freedom. When Sony entered the gaming competition, it did so with a machine DESIGNED to appeal to gamers, and made serious efforts to attract developers and publishers to develop fir the console. To, y'know, make games that mattered. While Microsoft's focus HAS changed in the last couple years, they ALSO entered the same way, with purpose, and with a machine meant to appeal to gamers. Apple entered the race without even caring to appeal to proper gamers, and that's not fucking fair to us.
  • sxh967 - January 8, 2013 6:42 a.m.

    Just because Apple's products weren't designed to appeal to gamers doesn't mean that they don't appeal to gamers. The figures show that more and more people are gaming on their smartphones or tablets, so the developer community WILL take those platforms more seriously and the games WILL improve in quality. Think of the products and services have been rendered obsolete by smartphones, tablets and their apps. Satnav? Don't bother! Just use your phone! Photography? If you don't use a $303049404 SLR, don't bother! Just use your phone! Need to check if a table you've built is level? Don't bother buying a level stick, your phone can do that! Want to listen to music on the move? Want a standalone music player? Don't bother! Just use your phone! It may take a couple more years but it would be naive to imagine the gaming industry as some invincible juggernaut that doesn't have to conform to market forces.
  • ParagonT - January 8, 2013 7:04 a.m.

    I could agree to that. On principle I feel the same way. Apple is a trend, not a competitor of quality, and really doesn't deserve the praise it gets.

Showing 1-18 of 18 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000