It couldn't be the same setup as the current Apple TV, though. I mean, I'm starting to like the idea of Apple side-stepping into this industry, but the Apple TV (box) would have to be changed fairly drastically if it's going to be doing this, too. For one, it would have to have greatly expanded internal storage, and that would need to be listed instead of a silent spec. I'd imagine it would need more RAM, too (what does it have now, 1GB?).
But as well as iOS devices have been handling games, an expansion of that ecosystem wouldn't be amiss. I just wish Apple would make up their mind about what the Apple TV is supposed to be, though. Because it's certainly not Apple reinventing television.
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
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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?
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:
Anything is possible, but you realise you are providing examples from 13 and 7 years ago?
the 32GB iPod touch is NZ$459, more expensive than a PS3
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:
(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.
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?
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
"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.
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.
claiming that Disney can't come up with new stories when they have 49 non-sequel titles since 1937 is simply wrong.
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:
That's Pixar though and it is based on a video game.
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.
Quote:
Still Rapunzel. It's like Luigi's Mansion is still basically a Mario game.
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.
Quote:
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:
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.
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).
Quote:
ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING.
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.
Quote:
Good thing I never claimed that.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Well, Xbox and Playstation, at least.
It couldn't be the same setup as the current Apple TV, though. I mean, I'm starting to like the idea of Apple side-stepping into this industry, but the Apple TV (box) would have to be changed fairly drastically if it's going to be doing this, too. For one, it would have to have greatly expanded internal storage, and that would need to be listed instead of a silent spec. I'd imagine it would need more RAM, too (what does it have now, 1GB?).
But as well as iOS devices have been handling games, an expansion of that ecosystem wouldn't be amiss. I just wish Apple would make up their mind about what the Apple TV is supposed to be, though. Because it's certainly not Apple reinventing television.
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
.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.
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."
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.
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.
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
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.
None of these things are true.
Actually, he's correct in that Wii U sales have been pretty Pii U. Sorry, couldn't resist
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.
Originally Posted by nht
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.
Originally Posted by nht
Name 26 Disney feature animation sequels out of the 52 feature animation titles.
Not direct to video movies like Mulan 2.
Ah, I see. Magical, arbitrary limitations.
…Nemo 2 (2016)
ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING.
I wish they'd do an incredibles 2. Sequels aren't bad.
So much potential for that world!
…but claiming that Disney can't come up with new stories when they have 49 non-sequel titles since 1937 is simply wrong.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That's Pixar though and it is based on a video game.
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.
Quote:
Still Rapunzel. It's like Luigi's Mansion is still basically a Mario game.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, I see. Magical, arbitrary limitations.
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).
Quote:
ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING.
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.
Quote:
Good thing I never claimed that.
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.
Originally Posted by nht
So name 26 feature sequels from Disney Animation (Studio).
Once again, a completely arbitrary limitation.