Xbox project cofounder: Game-enabled Apple TV would "simply kill Playstation, Wii-U, and Xbox" - Page 2

Few points:

- the gaming industry is a much easier industry for Apple to conquer compared to the mobile phone industry.

- Apple already is a major player in this business. Not a new comer.

- performance wise, A6X is probably already faster than the Cell processor in the PS3 - capable of 76 GFLOPS.

- there is a large market for casual gaming and for simpler games with good visual appeal.

- this will happen, no two ways about it. It is criminal that AppleTV does not allow 3rd party apps and games already.

- not just games, this could also usher in interactive TV.

 

The problem is, gamers (the people who spend billions yearly in this industry) can pan it as much as they like, it won't change the fact that the current business model for the games market is increasingly shaky.  With games costing hundreds of millions to make for the big games consoles, it won't be long until the whole thing becomes unsustainable, and something like iOS in the living room will be welcomed by the developers.

 

What will dictate the winners and losers in the games console market isn't what the gamers want, it's where the money can be made.

 

I'm sure gamers who want a handheld console would prefer the PS Vita over an iPhone, but I'd rather be invested in a company making games for the iPhone.

Remembering you are comparing a 2006 device to a 2011 device.

The fact that the hardware of a console stays consistant throughout it's liftspan is a massive advantage, I know the games I purchase anytime in the lifespan will work, and work at the same performance level if I get them at day one, or at day 600


You mean just like the PS3 does now? I can upgrade my PS3 and the games still work. Now will the Apple TV you talk about (or the iPhones etc) do the reverse like the PS3/XBox 360 does? AAA titles from 2013 will still work on a 2006 ps3/xbox360, will a AAA iOS game from 2013 work at the same quality/performance on an original iPhone?

They wouldn't get exclusives, they would have to pay for exclusives, and Microsoft and Sony have a lot of the major AAA titles tied up

They don't have to have the same length of compatibility. 3-4 years of compatibility would be enough, which they seem to manage already and you'd be able to resell the hardware to upgrade to the latest model same as you do with a computer.

It's better than trying to shoehorn 2013 games onto 2006 hardware.

They have some high-profile exclusives:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/29/3929140/epic-citadel-comes-to-android-today

They might struggle to get AAA exclusive titles without paying for them but they have money. A decent AAA game can be developed for $10-20m. Apple could commission 5-10 exclusives themselves and they'd more than make their money back with over 400 million iOS users. They can charge $3 and 4-7 million copies makes a profit.

I doubt they'd even make $20m AAA games because they'd look for a 1-2 year turnaround.

You have stated the one truth most people are ignoring - what succeeds will be what gamers want.  That principle neatly negates your first paragraph.  The existing games development model exists because it delivers what a lot of gamers want, the immersive high production value A ranking games.

 

You might as well argue that the exiting model for the production of Hollywood style blockbuster movies is broken, It can't last. Small independent French art house style films will slip in and take over when the big studios and their huge edifice of high cost, high production value films topples into the dust under it's own unsustainable weight.

 

Er, no.

 

As with Hollywood blockbusters, the top selling games are mostly those that cost a lot to produce.  Modern Warfare 2 is said to have cost between 40 and 50 million - as of January 18, 2010, it had taken over 1 billion in sales.  Such a broken business model.

 

 

Most of the top games of recent times have been those with high production values like Halo 4, Assassin's Creed 3, Battlefield 3, Skyrim, Borderlands 2, Far Cry 3 etc.  Although a lot these games are visually impressive, they could have been a lot more so had the current console hardware not been frozen at 6 year old tech.

 

Arguing that the Apple TV style hardware can easily crush existing consoles is rather missing the fact that the Xbox and PS consoles are both due for replacement this year.  Any hypothetical Apple TV gaming system is going to have to be competing with the new consoles, not the old.  My understanding is that mobile GPUs will only get to match the current Xbox 360's GPU capabilities later this year - by which time the GPUs in the new consoles will be way ahead.  I  have seen an estimate of the GPU capability for the next Xbox, which touts AMD 7000 series graphics capabilities, which if true, would slightly trump iOS GPUs.

 

I really don't see Apple ever providing enough GPU grunt to take on the next gen consoles.  Nor would they ever provide enough memory, SD, or disc based  storage.  Both consoles are rumoured to include Blu-ray drives.  A game disc could therefore hold 50 Gb of date, which is now necessary given the scale of some modern games.  Battlefield 3,  Halo 4, Mass Effect 2 & 3 all come as 2 DVD disc sets.

 

iOS gaming is a completely different market to the one the Xbox and PS consoles cater to.  Unless Apple provides hardware capable of running the A rank games, I don't see them displacing consoles, and given their liking for relatively enormous margins on their hardware, I doubt they will compete in this particular entertainment arena.

Sarcasm eludes you once again.

 

Is there a big difference between buying a new gaming aTV for $200 every 2-3 years as opposed to $500 for a new XBox every 10?

 

App game developers already deal with a few generations of iOS devices and retina vs non-retina devices.  PC game devs have had low/med/high settings for nearly forever.

 

I think that the A5X aTV would be a decent enough performer at $99 to kick off gaming.  I think that even through Tim said he didn't want to get into the traditional console market he left room for an iPad/iPhone + aTV hybrid gaming approach to eliminate the lag seen in the current AirPlay solution.  

 

The aTV SDK could provide iOS app devs the ability to tap the aTV for rendering, multi-iOS device coordination (including non-local iOS devices) and local BT controllers.  Higher quality (aka bigger) textures could be hosted on the aTV since they would be unneeded on the iPhone/iPod Touch.

 

I would caveat that as "what succeeds will be what game buyers want".  That's actually a slightly different demographic since it removes a lot of younger games and adds quite a few parents.

 

As a parent I push iOS gaming hard.  My kids wanted a 3DS.  I said hell no.  Here's an iPad.  My wife looked at me like I was an idiot until I showed her the difference in game prices.  Plus the iPad is useful for other things besides gaming.

 

Gamers may want immersive high production value AAA games.  What their parents are going to be willing to buy after being exposed to $0.99 to $19.99 titles on iOS may be something else.  

 

Plus, unless Microsoft makes the XBox Next a full fledged home server that can also run Office I'm more inclined to get a gaming rig HDTV than a console except for Kinect style games.  A lot of those games are not high production value AAA games but fun social games.  Something that a game enable aTV could handle. 

 

Oh, are we kicking the price up even further? Yes, there's a big difference; in a year's time that Apple TV is outdated, whereas the console gets five years of assured compatibility.

 

Console life cycles are 5 years. If you're buying one every ten, you'd be replacing your Nintendo 64 with a Wii, for example.

 

I'm trying to look at it from a gamer's perspective—one who would be the "early adopter" for new consoles, buying them as soon as they're released and then their successor, etc.

 

The Apple TV seems like a more expensive option in that regard, even at $99, since games will be made that don't run on it after a single year.

 

Though if the prices of the Big Three consoles trend upward as the Wii U has been forced to, we'll see the Xbox and PlayStation 4 be something like $599 and $899…

 

As a parent, I tend to get my children the games they want.  While my daughter is satisfied with some iOS games, my son would not be, and there are many Xbox games my daughter enjoys as well.

 

I therefore buy xbox games mostly.

 

So while there obviously are parents who will push iOS, there are obviously those who won't.

 

I don't think you can compare the A ranked game market with the sort that will run on iOS.  I think they are different markets and the guy whinging about the xbox is a self confessed iOS developer.  His whole piece is predicated on his wish he could tap into the xBox as a small developer and cash in.  He can't at the moment so he's venting his displeasure and tossing toys out of the pram and predicting the demise of consoles at the hand of A TV style devices.  He's entitled to his view, but I really don't see the demand for A ranked games going away or of A TV being upgraded to the point it could run even the current ones, let alone the next generation ones.  For a taste of the next generation of A ranked games, I think you want to be looking at Crysis 3 performance on a gaming PC.  There is not the slightest chance of Apple providing any hardware that could run that with the developers spec in hardware.  A Mac Pro is the only hardware Apple makes with  a good enough GPU to run crysis 3, and you would need the HD 5870 card option at $200 to achieve the recommended level of performance.

If apple is smart, they will use some of those billions to hire a couple hundred employees to make this happen.  They need:

 

Apple Television (high-end, simple to use, ideally with a-la-carte programming)

Apple TV thingy with the ability to run apps

Bluetooth game controller

 

Move on this asap apple... or you risk losing out if the rest of the industry gets their shit together.

 

Here we go again.

 

Why do they need a TV. Why do they need a controller. Why do they need to hurry. History shows the opposite works out for them.

 

So the box doesn't have the programming? Why is it called Apple TV, then? So the television can't run apps? How does that solve any problems with modern TV? They already have controllers.

 

The XBox 360 was launched on May 2005.  It's Feb 2013.  The launch announcement is expected in June.  That's 8 years.  I was saying 10 to be nice.  $500 every 7-8 years is more money during the console lifecycle.

 

Did I bump the price up?  Sure.  A BT controller, more RAM, more flash, etc and $199 seems reasonable.  Maybe $149.

 

 

 

$99 every year vs $500 every 5 years is the same cost.  

 

 

Right, I'm just going off of past cycles, to which Nintendo, at least, is still adhering. Sony says the PS3 will be their machine until 2018. Good luck with that. 

 

But consoles have historically been meaningfully less than $500.

 

Right, right! But still, there are games optimized for newer iPads that literally STUTTER on the first-gen. That one new space game comes to mind… there's an HD version and a regular version; they specifically say "don't get the HD version if you have the first-gen iPad", but why would you even make it available to that model if you know it's going to stutter?!

 

I think you've hit it on the nose. A dedicated iOS device for gaming will be catering to casual gamers (read: nearly everyone that plays video games) rather than self-designated "hardcore" gamers. Except the Apple gaming device will give dedicated gaming rigs and consoles a run for their money graphically, while still having the quality (and, of course, not) stories and gameplay afforded to games across the spectrum.

 

Many "hardcore" gamers just play first person shoot-em-ups. You know, the games that are the exact same every year, rereleased? And many "casual" games are some of the most innovative. We've already seen great stuff, both graphically and in gameplay, come out of iOS, even as a handheld trio. Console manufacturers are right to worry about the future. Even without dedicated TV-based hardware, since AirPlay!

 

There are guys running Crysis 3 beta on 2011 iMacs.  

 

So run Crysis 3?  Absolutely.

 

The current mid grade 27" iMac ($1999+) with the GTX 675MX meets or exceeds the recommended specs.

 

The statement that the mac pro is the only mac that can meet recommended specs for Crysis 3 is wrong.

 

The top end 27" iMac ($2400+) mostly meets the high end recommended specs.  The GTX 680MX is an underclocked GTX 680 so with the 3.4 Ghz quad i7 it's pretty close. 

 

Run with all settings maxed?  Meh.  Few PC gamers have rigs that can do that either.

 

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

 

Minimum system requirements for PC

• Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
• DirectX 11 graphics card with 1Gb Video RAM
• Dual core CPU
• 2GB Memory (3GB on Vista)
• Nvidia/Intel example setup: Nvidia GTS 450, Intel Core2 Duo 2.4 Ghz (E6600)
• AMD example setup: AMD Radeon HD5770, AMD Athlon64 X2 2.7 Ghz (5200+)

Recommended system requirements for PC

• Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8
• DirectX 11 graphics card with 1GB Video RAM
• Quad core CPU
• 4GB Memory
• Nvidia/Intel example setup: Nvidia GTX 560, Intel Core i3-530
• AMD example setup: AMD Radeon HD5870, AMD Phenom II X2 565

Hi-performance system requirements for PC

• Windows Vista, Windows 7 or Windows 8 •
• Latest DirectX 11 graphics card •
• Latest quad core CPU
• 8GB Memory
• Nvidia/Intel example setup: NVidia GTX 680, Intel Core i7-2600k
• AMD example setup: AMD Radeon HD7970, AMD Bulldozer FX4150

 

Running On window 7 64bits Ultimate in bootcamp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOuntTXCLJs

 

Would ATV be able to do the same?

 

Heck no.  

 

For $99 you wouldn't expect it to either.  I think the A5X makes it a bit faster than the Wii though and given Infinity Blade 2 you can do pretty nice graphics on it.

A 32GB iPad mini costs $700, a PS3 costs $400, a gaming "aTV" would cost a lot more than the $150 they sell for now. I don't want to have to replace my console every 3-4 years, that is the advantage of the console.


Is it? I would say the consumer might disagree

That is a single game from a single developer. Was it a developer choice or Apple paying them? How do they get on with games like Killzone, LBP, Drakes Fortune, Halo, Ratchet & Clank etc?

I am not saying that Apple can't/won't do well at this, causal gaming is big, but the AAA exclusives will be harder to break into, you either have to pay a lot, or risk stepping on someones IP toes

Actually it takes a few years before developers understand how to take full advantage of the hardware. Change the hardware more often and they'll forever be behind the learning curve.

 

He's probably referring to Apple allowing iPad apps to run on the box --- which isn't too big a project for Apple. They should have done this by now IMO.

My XBox has a 40 gig hard drive. Other than the graphics -- it doesn't have too much about it that is any stretch for even the most basic PC. If Apple just expanded some capabilities to the iOS development platform -- it would have a very capable environment for games and an army of developers.

Microsoft is already moving this direction and will probably make porting from XBox to the Surface a fairly easy process (in theory). However, going from a resource rich high powered environment to a lower spec is a lot more work than going the other direction. If anything, I'm thinking the XBox cofounder is referring to that last point; right now, Microsoft has merely a toe-hold in the "portable" game market. Apple has the lions share. You can get a thousand fun little games on iOS for nothing or a $1 -- and that has to be killing the Nintendo hand-held gaming market.

It's really Apple's game to lose.

 

Agreed, they need to make up their mind.  I love my Apple TV and I love my XBox but they are such different devices.  If Apple TV allowed games to be played on it and they made a controller and all that other stuff but kept it to only being able to play little iOS games then I would see it eating up a lot of the Wii marketshare, but not XBox or Playstation.  XBox is a hardware powerhouse capable or running large, immersive and very detailed games.  A slightly modified ATV could not do that. 

 

As for those that suggest the XBox is mostly used for non-gaming, that stat is a little misleading.  There is a large population that buy it for tier one titles and play those till they get tired. But they also use it for Netflix for hours at a time and have kids doing the same.  That doesn't mean they bought the XBox to use Netflix.  It's a convenient perk and one they can use to sell their wives on letting them buy the XBox in the first place

 

That's like saying, "Other than my Ferrari's engine and, it doesn't have too much about it that is any stretch for even the most basic sports car."

Censorship?
Edited by Andrey - 2/15/13 at 8:05pm

A 32GB A5 iPad Mini costs $429 in the US but the $250 32GB iPod Touch has the faster A5X chip so is clearly the model for a $199 gaming Apple TV.

It's a fairly common criticism that consoles hold back game development the longer they are on the market:

http://bf3blog.com/2011/04/dice-consoles-are-holding-pc-games-back/

I don't think they hold them back too much but I think the 7 year cycles are too long.

Or buy a game studio like Square Enix. Microsoft bought Bungie in 2000, Lionhead in 2006 and various others. It's not an ideal scenario just buying companies because there isn't one company that constantly delivers great titles. Usually they each just have 1-2 major titles but they can commission the development of an exclusive game. If they fund the development, what does the developer care what they do with it? There's some risk involved but if they cap the budgets at $10m per year per studio, they can end up with 20 AAA exclusive titles in a year and only spend $200m out of the $30-40b a year they make. These games then help sell the platform and they make a lot of the money back on the games because they can sell them for decades.

We're reaching a point now though where it doesn't matter so much about having special architectures and Sony actually made it difficult on purpose:

http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for-on-purpose/

When they do that, developers will of course take a long time to optimize for it and that's why it seems like the hardware has a long lifespan but as Gabe Newell put it - it's a "waste of everyone's time". The game development process is hard enough without putting more unnecessary hurdles in the way and Sony really suffered for this decision in the beginning.

The good thing about PC and iOS hardware is that it's all standard hardware so the upgrade process is much easier.

Thanks for the link. I kinda knew what the answer was going to be before I even read it. They made it so the games gradually got better without having to upgrade the hardware. If there's a game series like Uncharted each game gets progressively better looking. In essence they want the wow factor to last a few years instead of just 1.

the 32GB iPod touch is NZ$459, more expensive than a PS3, also the PS3 has more disk, and the ability to expand the disk storage, how many 20GB games are you going to store on this 32GB console?

Anything is possible, but you realise you are providing examples from 13 and 7 years ago?

You can't update iOS hardware, you replace it

I picked the wrong one. The 5th gen 32GB iPod Touch is $299 in the US, which is more than the PS3. Prices down that area aren't as accurate for the rest of the world as Apple charges more than they should vs the currency rates for whatever reason:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2242846/apple-microsoft-and-adobe-prices-are-questioned-in-australia

(I am aware New Zealand and Australia aren't the same but I assume the same thing is happening with both).

That's not what it would cost once you take out the Retina display and battery though. That's really just an upper bound on what price they would sell one for. It would in effect be a battery-less, display-less iPod Touch, which I'd expect they could sell at a profit for $199.

Like I said previously, they'd be able to do what they do with the iOS titles, which is split them into chunks and sell them separately. A 20GB game can be split into 3 parts at less than 8GB each. That way you can get 3 or more major titles on at once. Game sizes tend not to be all that big so splits for the bigger ones would work ok and mostly be the exception:

http://www.ps3news.com/forums/ps3-linux-chat/post-ps3-dump-sizes-52113.html

All it needs is to be competitive with the other systems while making a profit for developers and Apple. If it was easy to make a much better device for the same price, the other manufacturers would have done it.

The console manufacturers right now are struggling to fight the eco-system they have created where they are dependent on physical retail stores and physical media, which allows game resale and loses them a lot of money. They also have the process of creating loss-leading hardware, which requires a long life cycle to become profitable, which compels them to use means like Sony has of increasing the lifespan. This also eats into developer profits on the game sales, not to mention that specialised process puts up a barrier for entry for a lot of quality developers.

They also tend to have backwards compatibility problems for a variety of reasons. There's a rumour going round about Sony's event coming up in a few days that says they will use their purchase of the game streaming service Gaikai as a way for PS4 gamers to play older titles. That could be quite a good way to address that problem if they invest enough in the hardware server-side and support older save-games.

An Apple gaming box would sell at a profit from day 1, would be price-competitive with other hardware, would offer intuitive and compelling interaction, would give developers a low barrier to entry and allow every sale to be a first-time sale. The hardware could be upgraded regularly but wouldn't be essential as lower-end titles would play just fine.

Getting good content is a problem and it would require investment beyond just financial investment but it's something Apple can do and should seriously consider. They're leaving more money on that table everybody seems to be leaving money on by not investing more in gaming.

It may slow down the sales of the XBox and Playstation but won't kill them. Those systems handle very powerful games and the Apple TV has a chip that has 1/5 the power. It may kill Nintendo altogether and they should have been porting their games over to iOS a long time ago because the Wii U is not selling well.

The Wii U is going to struggle more because developers seem to be avoiding support for it. Unreal Engine 4 and Frostbite 3 are not being ported:

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/03/29/unreal-engine-4-frostbite-3-will-not-support-wii-u

The Wii U is based on PPC and is obviously last-gen power. With the next-gen consoles being all x86, the porting jobs should be much easier between PS4, XBox and PC.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2013/03/gamestop-nintendo-wii-u-sales-disappointing/

64,000 units in February is not very good at all. It just came out. Nintendo probably should have come out with a tablet instead of a console. One of their biggest problems is they don't come up with new franchises. Every console generation, they keep rehashing their classics from 2 decades ago.

 

None of these things are true.

Actually, he's correct in that Wii U sales have been pretty Pii U. Sorry, couldn't resist But really, they have been pretty bad.

I think their marketing is a bit of problem. They had so many accessories for the Wii using names like Wii Fit, Wii Mote, Wii Mii, Wii Wheel, Wii Zapper etc that Wii U sounds like it's an accessory. Jimmy Fallon described it as an accessory for the Wii:

http://kotaku.com/5918946/jimmy-fallon-thought-the-wii-u-was-a-wii-peripheral

He thought the handheld part was the Wii U and an accessory controller for the Wii. Even the packaging is confusing because they put the name on the handheld part:



The actual Wii U doesn't look much different from the old Wii. The other problem is that when the target audience is casual gamers, there's not much incentive to buy a new one anyway. If you only use it for Wii Fit or Sports, you don't need another Wii console.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/390130/activision-somewhat-disappointed-by-wii-u-launch-sales/

"Last month Nintendo lowered its annual Wii U sales forecast from 5.5 million units to four million."

The exclusives don't look very good either:

ZombiU
Pikmin 3 (Nintendo)
Wii U Zelda (Nintendo)
New Super Mario Mii (Nintendo)
ZombiU
Rayman Legends
LEGO City Undercover

Just the same franchises again and again. They're a bit like Disney in that respect - they can't come up with new stories, characters etc so they keep reusing old material.

Wreck-it Ralph is same old same old?

Tangled is a princess fairy tale but fun and different than previous ones.

The only feature animations that were a sequel to a prior feature or part of a franchise that I can think of is pooh and rescuers out of 50+ features.

All the sequels I can recall are direct to video.

If you want to claim that Disney starts a new franchise every couple years that's sorta true although there have been some duds along the way.

Hell, Pixar had done more feature sequels than Disney Animation.

 

Three (soon to be four) vs. twenty-six? Not counting the two that made it to preproduction but were cancelled.

Name 26 Disney feature animation sequels out of the 52 feature animation titles.

Not direct to video movies like Mulan 2.

Pixar is easy:

Toy Story 2 & 3
Cars 2

And 2 future ones: Monster U (2013) and Nemo 2 (2016)

I wish they'd do an incredibles 2. Sequels aren't bad. I'm more than looking forward to more Kung Fu Panda and How To Train Your Dragon from Dreamworks but claiming that Disney can't come up with new stories when they have 49 non-sequel titles since 1937 is simply wrong.

The first sequel is Rescuers Down Under in 1990. The others are Fantasia 2000 and Pooh which can be considered as part of an existing Disney franchise.

Fantasia 2000 is a sequel but not really. Pooh would possibly be the best example but the original movie is actually several featuretts linked together for a feature presentation. The Tigger and Piglet and Heffalump movies would also be candidates but aren't considered part of the classic Disney animation collection and from Disney Toon rather than Disney Animation.

The DisneyToon studio has kind of a wierd mix of theatrical and direct to video titles. Some end up in theaters in only certain regions and is direct to video everywhere else.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Animation_Studios_films#section_1

That's Pixar though and it is based on a video game.

Still Rapunzel. It's like Luigi's Mansion is still basically a Mario game.

Very true, they have a fair amount of unique titles - it's probably just because they keep selling the old franchises every year that it seems like they reuse them. Nintendo's like someone else then that keeps using the same franchises over and over. Look at the list of games Mario is used in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_featuring_Mario

Even if you only count the actual Mario games, that's excessive.

The PS4 and NeXtBox will be able to run PC titles so their launch catalog can be massive. This is going to boost PC gaming too.

Ah, I see. Magical, arbitrary limitations.

 

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING.

 

So much potential for that world!

 

Good thing I never claimed that.

 

Though now that we're on the topic, how many of those titles were public domain stories before Disney got the infinite copyright on them?

 

No, it's Disney Animation Studio and not Pixar and is the 52nd animated feature from Disney.  It's based on a fictitious video game like Roger Rabbit was a fictitious animated character.  Like Roger Rabbit many actual video game characters were in Wreck It Ralph.

 

 

 

Disney has never done Rapunzel before and it's very very loosely like the fairy tale which, yes, is common with Disney since many fairy tales are pretty Grimm intended to scare kids to be good.

 

It's not like Luigi's Mansion since it's not part of an existing Disney franchise.  It's more like being part of a genre.

 

 

 

Nintendo lives primarily on the popularity of their first party titles.  That's a strength and a weakness.  Thus far they have been able to leverage the strength and mitigate the weaknesses.

 

I don't think they will be able to do that with Wii U nearly as effectively as they have in the past but on the other hand Nintendo hasn't done any real advertising push.  Still though, it's looking Game Cubish at the moment.

 

No, relevant ones to the position that Disney can't come up with original movies but rehash the same old franchises like Nintendo does with Mario and Zelda.  In any case my statement was: Hell, Pixar had done more feature sequels than Disney Animation.

 

So name 26 feature sequels from Disney Animation (Studio).

 

Besides, 26 seems too small a number when you count direct to video titles from other Disney studios like DisneyToon and Disney TV Animation (there are like 5 Tinker Bell movies alone and almost every one of the recent feature animations has a sequel if not two or three...hell there's a Cinderella III) and too high a number for the non-Disney Animation Studio theatrical titles (like Tigger).

 

 

 

Cars 2 was weak in comparison to the rest of the Pixar lineup but I liked it.  I believe that Pixar believes they have a story to tell with Nemo 2 or they wouldn't do it.

 

/shrug

 

I reserve judgement until I see the actual movie.

 

 

 

That was the original topic.  Instead you claimed some number you pulled out of thin air irrelevant in disproving my statement that Pixar has done more sequels than Disney Animation Studio.  

 

It's a simple request.  You state 26.  Name them.

 

Once again, a completely arbitrary limitation.