Sheikah

Cool, that's all 6. As well as a full hard mode we have to do one normal mode from start to finish. The second normal mode we can do from the Ir Yut checkpoint that we grab first time round. Doing hard mode doesn't let you carry over a checkpoint to normal, last time we tried it out.

I wholeheartedly agree with this GIF. Batten the hatches. Shit's going to get real in here now. My actual input: insane that it's not there. For a co-operative 'shooter' to not have voice chat is absolutely bizarre.

Forever, they will stay on your console for as long as it continues to work. They're yours to keep. The only difference is PS Plus games, which require you to keep up your Plus account in order to keep playing the games.

In Japan, you couldn't hope for anything better than DQ. I'd be disappointed if DQ was going to Wii U (they have already confirmed it's going to home console), although it could be a case of "Wii U there, PS4 here" (which is what happened with Ni no Kuni and DS/PS3).

If journalists leave with the wrong message then Nintendo have failed to deliver their message clearly. What's your alternative reason, the journalists secretly hate Nintendo and want to sabotage them? Just because Nintendo mentioned it's a new system it doesn't mean they did their job. Part of getting the message across is to use emphasis and branding, not just words.

Cool, space for 2 more.

No no, you can't bring him in here when his post was ultimately in agreement of what I'm saying: There's no reason why if the public didn't get it then some journalists wouldn't either. They're nothing special. Truth is, Nintendo should have been more clear, they should have opened by making a big deal and making it very clear it's "a new games console" and "a sequel to the Wii". Finally, they should have called it Wii 2 or not called it Wii at all. Their fault for not getting this across clear enough.

I don't disagree that marketing has helped PS4 topple the X1 in an extraordinary way, I just disagree with dazzy's earlier comment that the primary reason for its success is marketing/perception. The PS4 is selling faster than the PS2; like you just said, people are buying it as they're going to anyway, have been in the last generation ages it makes sense to hop on board now so they can play with friends (and play games at a higher performance level). I'd put all those reasons above marketing because ultimately no matter how good the marketing, you don't buy a product if it doesn't do what you want it to do, either now or later. This story covers how great the games already available on PS4 are. There's actually an awful lot and easily enough to tempt people to the system (including Xbox owners in the case of games like TLOU).

Realistically you can't blame the journalists for Nintendo getting their message across so poorly. You said "sure, if they just watched that trailer, they could have got the wrong end of the stick". Well then, the onus lies with Nintendo. It should be crystal clear throughout their presentation, especially when they've called it the Wii U and not Wii 2. You can't expect everyone to do an amazing job and listen throughout the entirety of something, you've got to leave no room for doubt. Which you could argue they failed at the moment they named it. Put it another way, do you think it matters to the journalist if they report that detail wrong? No, it matters to Nintendo. That's why the onus is on them to get the message across very clearly.

That definitely goes some way to explaining why the X1 isn't performing as great. However, people wouldn't be buying the PS4 unless it had either games they want to play, or games they wanted to play in the future. You can use marketing to explain why one is doing better than the other, but not as the primary reason why people are actually buying the system. It's because they want to play games!

Shall we get another hard Crota raid + 2 normals signup going? Tuesday 8:15 PM? Like before I'll stick you down tentatively Shorty as you're a good swordbearer, tell me to remove if you want. Sheikah @Shorty [space] [space] [space] [space] @Zell @DriftKaiser @Eddage @Agent Gibbs @MilaGi @Deathjam @Daft @Map

I like that one of the guys is called Gladiolus. What a name.

I'm not sure how it can be a surprise that it's selling even though it hasn't had time to accrue tonnes of top exclusives yet. Because surely if you sell a console that is going to play like 95%+ of games that will release for likely the next 6 years and that console bests its competition across several areas (price, specs, features, dev support, PS plus games) then it's almost a foregone conclusion it will sell like crazy? Marketing and perception are only moderately sized pieces of the pie in explaining the success, and in saying that you wash away so much credit. Perception also only comes as a result of doing the important things right, it's not so much of a reason in itself. I know others have said this to you but many here are very happy with the PS4 exclusives, Knack aside, so it's definitely a case of differing opinions here. Saying beyond poor is mental though! You've also then got to look to the future and PS4 again wins hands down on its exclusive lineup, which in part explains why the PS4 is doing so well, because people don't just buy for the here and now. Just look at what's coming - No Man's Sky, Uncharted, Persona and Bloodborne. These are huge deals with a lot of interest. I'm sure others like me look at X1 and see games we want like Tomb Raider but we know that at the end of the day it's a timed exclusive, so don't feel the need to rush out to buy an X1. Ok, NMS is essentially timed too, but MS are stubborn with parity so it may never see the light of day with them. That lineup is what we know about for now, before even considering Japanese games that went to PS3 (e.g. Tales of series) that now will likely go to PS4. And Dragon Quest! We know that's going home console, and PS4 seems most likely right now since MS have no presence in Japan. Yes, plenty of reasons to be excited, plenty of reasons to buy a PS4. Not surprising at all that it's doing well. :p

I finished this game yesterday and really enjoyed it. It was really fun being able to hack as you drive along and the last few missions felt like quite a bit of a challenge in terms of the amount of chaos being thrown at you. What I really liked about this as a sandbox game was that it took the GTA-esque elements and added some purpose to the surroundings, what with the need to navigate across buildings to find entrances, or follow wires to locate the switch and whatnot. Most of the time in sandbox games the surroundings tend to be more style over substance, so it was nice to see some actual gameplay in terms of interacting with the environment. Overall though this was game was a joy. I think actually hearing that some people were less than impressed meant I went into it with a lower expectation that I might have perhaps otherwise had, which only helped boost my opinion of what I actually played. It's still £9.99 preowned for PS4 on Grainger Games which is a great price for anyone who hasn't played this yet!

Yeah, I don't argue that. It was very interesting at the time, that's for sure. My post was more or less a response to 'don't use the word gimmick', like it was a dirty word. Just because it was a gimmick it doesn't mean people didn't have fun with it.

Yeah, not everything new is a gimmick. But new things that die out after a short time and do not establish a standard usually indicate it was a gimmick rather than something that truly revolutionised gaming. The Wii Remote is a textbook example of a gimmick. Initially everyone went mad for it; it became hugely popular overnight and was very quickly replicated by the competition. Then by the end of that generation the 'gimmick factor' was gone and nobody really cared about it anymore. All those shovelware motion control games dried up. To top it off, it never became a standard like the analogue stick, which is on every controller today pretty much. Waggle 'features' may still be in controllers, and you might argue there is some legacy there, but the general point and click aspect of the Wii Remote (which is really what it's all about) is not something that stood the test of time, nor do people really care if it's there or not these days. Nintendo consoles may still work with Wii Remotes but the fact the primary input method is now a gamepad shows even they are moving away from it.

@Serebii I am actually a little disgusted by the way you're behaving here. When challenged you start uttering absolute nonsense about backpeddling and 'you don't know what cumulative means'. Why can't you have a decent conversation without resorting to knee jerk retorts like that? One more time, I'd like to know, what was your initial point? I read it over again, and now you're trying to change the argument it seems. Do they make a loss, overall? No, they don't. We know that. The fact you keep focusing on just the PS3 out of 4 of Sony's consoles pretty much shows this. So how can you say they shouldn't adopt this tactic?

With the Wii U they definitely would have made more profit. No point making an under spec console that is unpopular. They could have upped its specs and sold at a small loss. Anyway, I think it's obvious Serebii was going down the route of saying they don't make profit which I've seen him do before, and as you can see is not true at all. To look at what the PS3 did initially seems rather short-sighted given we have a more modern/relevant example in the PS4. Oh really! So including the incredibly popular PS1, the best selling console of all time (PS2), the PS3 and PS4? Got another figure to say overall PlayStation has made. a loss for them? Seems odd they would stay in video games for so long if that was the case!

You proved they generate profit after saying they make losses. You proved yourself wrong, if anything!

I wasn't being irrelevant. Look at what you said, Serebii. Everything I've said is relating to that.

What backpeddling? Someone said it's not very profitable and I asked for proof. Have I gone back on any words? No! I'm not even convinced that it's not very profitable actually, but then I don't run a games company and know what figure is considered great. Serebii, your whole point has been 'Sony/MS lose money, Nintendo shouldn't copy them'. And yet...you just showed they made a profit? Ok. I also think contrary to you that they should aim to sell hardware cheaper at less profit; production costs will go down after time anyway, better to get people tied to your console and buy your games/services. It's so account/loyalty driven these days, something Nintendo aren't even able to be part of since they're behind on that. If they make less profit then so be it, if that means savings are passed on to us and we adopt it in higher numbers. Nexus range devices have done the same thing and they really took off.

Not so much simple mathematics @Serebii, simple including the figures/sources when you start talking figures is all I ask. I actually have no idea why this is even a point. It's obvious that you should sell your system either at a small profit or even a small loss, to get a foothold. You say that it's not good to make this level of profit and this is a bad thing to learn from the competition. That may be with the 3DS where there is little direct competition, but not so for home console. You can see that PS4 is selling buckets and it completely out manoeuvred the X1, and was priced well even against the Wii U. I literally have no idea how you could argue that this is not a good business strategy!

Where are you getting the information about Playstation not being massively profitable? Specifically with regards to their PS4, not past figures. I like to see supporting facts when people start talking about sales, like I gave.

I'm doubtful of your 'on the whole' argument too. Is your point that the PS3 made no profit in the end? Or do you not have a point and just want to bitch about the PS3? My point is very clear - what Sony have done with the PS4 is not only popular but it's also making them great money. If you're going to bring in arguments about them losing money at some point in the past, I'm going to show you how amazing they're doing now in order to show that doing what they're doing these days is a good idea.

I don't see why people would have a problem with them since they are usually handled by another company to the ones making the games in the first place. The only thing I object to is when you get minimal effort remasters of a certain age being sold for £18 (or whatever the Wii titles are currently going for).