Defender, what point are you trying to make here? Do you honestly think that the Wii is going to fail, or even lose its place as market leader(once it catches up to the 360), because of imprecise controls?
With that in mind, please explain to me how TP has "depth" in its exploration of the world.
Your obesseion with combat is idiotic.
Oh yeah, good one. That totally explained to me how TP has "depth" in its world exploration.
There's depth in non-combat games. So is Chess. So is football. I simply picked Soul Calibur because it's easy for me to identify and relate the first few layers of depth.
You still failed to explain how TP's world exploration has depth. Ultimately, you still look like you don't even know what gameplay depth is, so you're totally avoiding the question. Now, you claimed TP had "depth" in its exploration. Explain how.
2) After you pick a difficulty level, you're not in control of that. When you choose to play through a game in some weird style, you're able to go back on that decision at any time, plus the balance for that "mode" is not set out by the game developers. The TP and KH2 "I will just deprive my character of power" options are not "integrated into the gameplay" at all because the developers did not create and balance-adjust that. You did! God of War, on the other hand, IS integrated into the gameplay because the developers put it in there and were therefore able to test it and balance-adjust it and make it work the way they wanted it to.
Again. If they hadn't wanted that to be an option they would have made them required.
No, because if they made it "required" that you fight monsters to level yourself up, the game would have reduced player choice because it would be purely linear, even with fixed levelling-up and fixed monster battles. They apparently didn't want that for that game. So you're wrong. Just choosing not to use certain moves or certain powers or certain items is NOT something that the game designers balance-tested and put in there as an integrated part of the game, but difficulty levels at the opening menu screen ARE something that the developer put in on purpose.
And you can always go back and pick an easier difficulty level. Just because you have to go back and click "new game" dosn't mean you can't.
This doesn't make any point at all. I already said that the difficulty levels in most games are merely alternate versions of the same game, like developer-made mods. Being able to quit one version of the game and start up another is entirely different from choosing not to use power-ups.
Again. If they give you the option, it's a "difficulty level" even if they don't say it directly.
No, playing with purposely bad strategy in some way that you make up is not the same as a difficulty setting because (1) it's completely under your control and (2) it wasn't put in there and balance-tested by the developer.
What about games like the Sim City? Is there depth there? You don't kill anyone so I guess not!
Tetris? Nope! Nothing there but a score! No depth whatsoever.
Animal Crossing? What do you mean I can't kill my neighbors? How shallow!
Since you don't even know what "depth" is, there's no point in responding. Please learn the terms instead of just deciding that "depth" can mean "content" or "violence" depending on what retarded point you're trying to hammer out. Also, can you try arguing with what I actually say instead of making up your own definitions for terms and then retroactively applying them to my statements? You're basically just making shit up that I never said and then arguing against that instead of me. That's called a "straw man."
If graphics mean nothing, then why does John Carmack have so much money? If graphics mean nothing, then why do people bother building hardware like video cards? Who's buying those $600 video cards? Who's buying those next-gen consoles? Why do they keep coming up with new versions of OpenGL and DirectX? Why does time and money keep getting invested in improving something that "doesn't matter"? It's been a LONG TIME of people producing better and better graphics through software and hardware...why?
Hardcore gamers are buying 600$ video cards. Hardcore gamers may be the loudest but they are far from the largest.
Yeah, hardcore gamers are the only ones buying the super-expensive shit, because it's super fucking expensive. But if you went into a computer store and bought a $150 graphics card, it would be way better than the $150 graphics cards from five years ago. Just because you're not buying the best of the best doesn't mean that the tech level isn't constantly moving up.
Essentially game makers are in polygon dick waving contests, in which in order to enjoy the game you need to but that expensive video card and then later having to but a new one.
And people wonder why big, flashy, PC gaming isn't happening much anymore.
And last I checked, the "next-gen console" (and anyone who uses that term to describe any system that's out is a toolbox) that most people are buying is the Wii.
It's half the price and has great marketing. No shit.
Big PC games aren't happening anymore? Don't tell Blizzard that! They might get upset that nobody's buying their huge, flashy PC games.
And since when does saying "next-generation" make you a tool? It's an accurate description; consoles can be grouped nicely into "generations" of technology. You're really reaching here.
Also, this isn't the first time that people have said "wow, these graphics are the best that there will ever need to be." I've heard that statement time after time and they always get better. We're not at "holodeck" level graphics yet; we're gonna keep on moving up.
That's fine.
That doesn't mean people are going to pay for the shiny graphics. Most people don't want to pay that much.
You seem to think that just because they can make a console that powerful they must. Why should they when all it does is cause them to bleed money and make gaming ever more expensive?
Well how about if you just explain to me why it keeps happening? You seem to think you know a whole lot more than you actually do, so let's hear it. Come on, guy who doesn't know what an API is or what gameplay depth means, tell me about the future of gaming technology. I mean, your total ignorance of all sides of the subject surely must cancel out in some form of a giant double-negative, right?
Oh. Right. Because you can't bear to think that the dreaded "mainstream" liking the same things you do. The only people who should play games are those who earn them darn it!
Yeah! Make up a perspective that I never said, then use it as an ad hominem! It's like even when you make up your own ammunition, it's still no good.
In short, people clearly haven't declared that they mean nothing, because they keep buying them. Also, if you just want to say "well, people SAID that they don't care about graphics," well, yeah, they've said that a thousand times, but somehow the economy keeps supporting better graphics hardware and software. Just like how if you say you don't care what a girl looks like, but you only ever ask out the hot girls...guess what? Say it all you want, that doesn't mean it's true.
The market isn't going to support the expensive hardware jump that the 360 and PS3 represent.[/quoe]
Just wait, it will. It's already started. As time goes on and the Wii's hardware shows its age more and more, it'll weaken. Especially if they keep deciding that nobody wants any kind of online community.
Both of them are going to be niche, only bought by the hardcore. And guess what. Super Shiny graphics are expensive, and are getting more expensive faster then the number of hardcore gamers is growing.
Nah, things like XBLA and PSN are going to make it more accessible. Developers will produce casual titles. Nintendo doesn't have the market on casual gaming cornered.
Defender, what point are you trying to make here? Do you honestly think that the Wii is going to fail, or even lose its place as market leader(once it catches up to the 360), because of imprecise controls?
Nope, but I do think that it will weaken as time goes on because of its vastly inferior hardware and lack of online strategy. Also, the VC thing seems to have started to get old (har har) already, which is a real shame. I had hoped for the sort of emulated paradise that they kind of implied they'd have up front, but then they decided to slow-release everything in such a way that basically means I can't just go "yeah, you know, I wanna play Flashback" or whatever and then actually go and play it.
I want one where I have four dongs and I need to change their lengths to help people cross over obstacles. Ooh! Maybe the people can be lemmings, and we can have both the dong-manipulation AND job-assignment roles!
Defender, what point are you trying to make here? Do you honestly think that the Wii is going to fail, or even lose its place as market leader(once it catches up to the 360), because of imprecise controls?
Nope, but I do think that it will weaken as time goes on because of its vastly inferior hardware and lack of online strategy. Also, the VC thing seems to have started to get old (har har) already, which is a real shame. I had hoped for the sort of emulated paradise that they kind of implied they'd have up front, but then they decided to slow-release everything in such a way that basically means I can't just go "yeah, you know, I wanna play Flashback" or whatever and then actually go and play it.
it's because it makes no economic sense to just dump everything on to the virtual console at once
So right now I see about 3 million PS3s, 6.9 million Wiis, and 10 million 360s.
The 360 had a head start, sure, so that's a little unfair, but here's the deal:
The PS3 and the 360 both represent "big, flashy" systems with, you know, good hardware. So when you want to see what people are buying, don't forget to consider that it's not just Wii versus one of those two, it's Wii versus BOTH, because the 360 and the PS3 are both high-end "flashy" machines.
Also, like I said, 3 million PS3s and 6.9 million Wiis as of when I opened that page. I rounded the PS3s down and the Wiis up, actually.
And this doesn't count the money that people have spent on the 360. So it looks like the market is supporting the PS3 about as well (actually slightly more) than the Wii, if you just look at how much money has been poured into it. If you want to look at units sold, sure, the Wii's got more out there than the PS3 right now, but if you look at money, the PS3 is up. You're looking at it the way you want it to be, and that's fine. It's just like how you debate me by using terms you don't understand and changing the things I say to be more convenient. You want to pretend that things are one way when in fact they're not.
Defender, what point are you trying to make here? Do you honestly think that the Wii is going to fail, or even lose its place as market leader(once it catches up to the 360), because of imprecise controls?
Nope, but I do think that it will weaken as time goes on because of its vastly inferior hardware and lack of online strategy. Also, the VC thing seems to have started to get old (har har) already, which is a real shame. I had hoped for the sort of emulated paradise that they kind of implied they'd have up front, but then they decided to slow-release everything in such a way that basically means I can't just go "yeah, you know, I wanna play Flashback" or whatever and then actually go and play it.
it's because it makes no economic sense to just dump everything on to the virtual console at once
I don't know that that's the sole reason, but I do agree that the gimmick of playing old games lasts longer if you can pretend to have a "new release" every week or whatever. I've said this before; people would buy a ton of VC games up front if they were all released at once and then go "oh hey I played three of these for five minutes each and then stopped...I'm not buying any more eight-dollar ROMs." I've said this a few times before, I agree that it would be bad strategy, but ultimately it's because the whole thing is a gimmick and the idea is to keep people on board that gimmick as long as possible.
Defender on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
edited May 2007
Um, Defender...the Wiis aren't sold at a loss the PS3 is so you can't possibly make a business case for it on console sales alone.
Um, Defender...the Wiis aren't sold at a loss the PS3 is so you can't possibly make a business case for it on console sales alone.
All I'm saying is that market demand in dollars has the PS3 slightly ahead of the Wii, and that doesn't even count 360 sales.
Sony has other ways of recouping, as well, including ad space in Home. But that's beside the point; I'm not making a business case for anything, I'm merely saying that it's horribly skewed to portray the market's demand in raw units sold when one item costs less than half per unit of what the other costs.
that's pretty much your weakest argument yet, Defender
How is it a weak argument to show that more money has been spent on the PS3 alone than the Wii, without even counting the 360? All I'm saying is that "number of units sold" is not the ultimate factor.
Did you mean that it was my hardest argument for you to understand?
EDIT: Oh hey I also didn't count gaming-related sales in the PC market, which tend to be on the higher-end, tech-wise.
defender what do you mean that you think the reason for the wii's eventual failure will be underpowered hardware and lack of online strategy?
well i can think of a few reasons the wii could go down but those really aren't either of them of them
it's underpowered in comparison to the PS3, or the 360, yeah, but to be honest it can make games look good enough if the developers try to make it look good enough, surely.
Si Senor on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
that's pretty much your weakest argument yet, Defender
How is it a weak argument to show that more money has been spent on the PS3 alone than the Wii, without even counting the 360? All I'm saying is that "number of units sold" is not the ultimate factor.
Did you mean that it was my hardest argument for you to understand?
EDIT: Oh hey I also didn't count gaming-related sales in the PC market, which tend to be on the higher-end, tech-wise.
We'll see. I agree with your arguments on hardware superiority and all but Sony has done such a horseshit job of marketing their product and keeping exclusive titles for it that I can't imagine how long it will take for their console to be worth owning.
The 360 is the clear winner right now and it's immediate future (The next 1.5 years at least) is by far the brightest.
it's underpowered in comparison to the PS3, or the 360, yeah, but to be honest it can make games look good enough if the developers try to make it look good enough, surely.
Market demand isn't measured in dollars, dumbass. What matters to developers and publishers is how many people own the console, i.e. how many copies their games can sell. That's why the Wii, as the soon-to-be market leader, will get all the games and thus continue to build on its lead regardless of what the elite few think of its graphics. The PS2 was the console with bad hardware last gen, remember?
Zek on
0
Options
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderatormod
edited May 2007
defender
I don't even know if, at this point, you are still "in character" playing devil's advocate, but
jesus christ you really have to stop bringing up the whole "but if you don't understand why you enjoy something, then how can you possibly enjoy it?!?"
sometimes people just like to have fun. In fact, I'm willing to bet cash monies that the vast, vast majority of the gaming public doesn't sit around talking about what made a game fun, they just enjoy the games that they like.
It isn't rocket science. It is recreation. I read books a lot, and I don't sit and analyze most of them, I just enjoy them for what they are. I listen to a lot of music. I don't sit down and break down what each artist is doing on each track, I simply enjoy the music for what it is. I play a lot of video games. I don't construct fucking diagrams to show how this game used clever ploys to engage me with a unique control system by limiting my overall choices but providing the illusion of free will. I just fucking enjoy having fun.
it's underpowered in comparison to the PS3, or the 360, yeah, but to be honest it can make games look good enough if the developers try to make it look good enough, surely.
Pix or it didn't happen!
woooo
Anime Owns on
0
Options
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderatormod
edited May 2007
guys I'm having fun and I don't know why oh shit someone help!
that's pretty much your weakest argument yet, Defender
How is it a weak argument to show that more money has been spent on the PS3 alone than the Wii, without even counting the 360? All I'm saying is that "number of units sold" is not the ultimate factor.
Did you mean that it was my hardest argument for you to understand?
EDIT: Oh hey I also didn't count gaming-related sales in the PC market, which tend to be on the higher-end, tech-wise.
We'll see. I agree with your arguments on hardware superiority and all but Sony has done such a horseshit job of marketing their product and keeping exclusive titles for it that I can't imagine how long it will take for their console to be worth owning.
The 360 is the clear winner right now and it's immediate future (The next 1.5 years at least) is by far the brightest.
Oh my god I know! I can't believe some of the stupid shit Sony pulled. Just totally unbelievable.
Defender on
0
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
Market demand isn't measured in dollars, dumbass. What matters to developers and publishers is how many people own the console, i.e. how many copies their games can sell. That's why the Wii, as the soon-to-be market leader, will get all the games and thus continue to build on its lead regardless of what the elite few think of its graphics. The PS2 was the console with bad hardware last gen, remember?
Ok, look, I own a Wii and I think you are drawing a real bad comparison here. The PS2 was slightly behind horsepower wise because it was the first to be released but it wasn't a full generation behind processor wise like the Wii is.
I don't even know if, at this point, you are still "in character" playing devil's advocate, but
jesus christ you really have to stop bringing up the whole "but if you don't understand why you enjoy something, then how can you possibly enjoy it?!?"
How can I stop making that point when I never started making it?
I'm willing to bet cash monies that the vast, vast majority of the gaming public doesn't sit around talking about what made a game fun, they just enjoy the games that they like.
And the most successful restaurant in the world is MacDonald's, despite that the food is shit, because people eat it without thinking about what they're eating and without ever developing an appreciation for good food. I already know this, and I've said it many times.
It isn't rocket science. It is recreation. I read books a lot, and I don't sit and analyze most of them, I just enjoy them for what they are. I listen to a lot of music. I don't sit down and break down what each artist is doing on each track, I simply enjoy the music for what it is. I play a lot of video games. I don't construct fucking diagrams to show how this game used clever ploys to engage me with a unique control system by limiting my overall choices but providing the illusion of free will. I just fucking enjoy having fun.
Yes, I understand that you don't think about what makes things good and that's why you don't know why you like the things you like. I understand that you watch celebrity/reality TV and are deeply interested in Anna Nicole Smith's death because the media hit you in the face with it enough times and you don't think. What point are you making? Of COURSE the vast majority of the consumers of ANYTHING that isn't a niche product are completely ignorant of what makes it good. That's why, perhaps to Pata's dismay, graphics have historically been such a big deal in games; any retard can see shiny special effects at a glance, so games have been able to sell based on that for decades.
Also, it may not be "science" to you, but it IS science to the people who actually make the products and the people who actually appreciate the products.
I agree. It's not that hard. So why are you having such a tough time understanding that there are rules and principles behind games, just as there are in every other artistic medium?
it's underpowered in comparison to the PS3, or the 360, yeah, but to be honest it can make games look good enough if the developers try to make it look good enough, surely.
Posts
Oh yeah, good one. That totally explained to me how TP has "depth" in its world exploration.
There's depth in non-combat games. So is Chess. So is football. I simply picked Soul Calibur because it's easy for me to identify and relate the first few layers of depth.
You still failed to explain how TP's world exploration has depth. Ultimately, you still look like you don't even know what gameplay depth is, so you're totally avoiding the question. Now, you claimed TP had "depth" in its exploration. Explain how.
No, because if they made it "required" that you fight monsters to level yourself up, the game would have reduced player choice because it would be purely linear, even with fixed levelling-up and fixed monster battles. They apparently didn't want that for that game. So you're wrong. Just choosing not to use certain moves or certain powers or certain items is NOT something that the game designers balance-tested and put in there as an integrated part of the game, but difficulty levels at the opening menu screen ARE something that the developer put in on purpose.
This doesn't make any point at all. I already said that the difficulty levels in most games are merely alternate versions of the same game, like developer-made mods. Being able to quit one version of the game and start up another is entirely different from choosing not to use power-ups.
No, playing with purposely bad strategy in some way that you make up is not the same as a difficulty setting because (1) it's completely under your control and (2) it wasn't put in there and balance-tested by the developer.
That's not what the term "depth" means. I've told you this a bunch of times.
Since you don't even know what "depth" is, there's no point in responding. Please learn the terms instead of just deciding that "depth" can mean "content" or "violence" depending on what retarded point you're trying to hammer out. Also, can you try arguing with what I actually say instead of making up your own definitions for terms and then retroactively applying them to my statements? You're basically just making shit up that I never said and then arguing against that instead of me. That's called a "straw man."
Yeah, hardcore gamers are the only ones buying the super-expensive shit, because it's super fucking expensive. But if you went into a computer store and bought a $150 graphics card, it would be way better than the $150 graphics cards from five years ago. Just because you're not buying the best of the best doesn't mean that the tech level isn't constantly moving up.
It's half the price and has great marketing. No shit.
Big PC games aren't happening anymore? Don't tell Blizzard that! They might get upset that nobody's buying their huge, flashy PC games.
And since when does saying "next-generation" make you a tool? It's an accurate description; consoles can be grouped nicely into "generations" of technology. You're really reaching here.
Well how about if you just explain to me why it keeps happening? You seem to think you know a whole lot more than you actually do, so let's hear it. Come on, guy who doesn't know what an API is or what gameplay depth means, tell me about the future of gaming technology. I mean, your total ignorance of all sides of the subject surely must cancel out in some form of a giant double-negative, right?
Yeah! Make up a perspective that I never said, then use it as an ad hominem! It's like even when you make up your own ammunition, it's still no good.
Vote for my film! (watching it is also an option)
wii friend code: 7623 9955 2119 1775
Me too
Nope, but I do think that it will weaken as time goes on because of its vastly inferior hardware and lack of online strategy. Also, the VC thing seems to have started to get old (har har) already, which is a real shame. I had hoped for the sort of emulated paradise that they kind of implied they'd have up front, but then they decided to slow-release everything in such a way that basically means I can't just go "yeah, you know, I wanna play Flashback" or whatever and then actually go and play it.
I want one where I have four dongs and I need to change their lengths to help people cross over obstacles. Ooh! Maybe the people can be lemmings, and we can have both the dong-manipulation AND job-assignment roles!
it's because it makes no economic sense to just dump everything on to the virtual console at once
Vote for my film! (watching it is also an option)
wii friend code: 7623 9955 2119 1775
group hug
to protect us from the storm
http://nexgenwars.com/
So right now I see about 3 million PS3s, 6.9 million Wiis, and 10 million 360s.
The 360 had a head start, sure, so that's a little unfair, but here's the deal:
The PS3 and the 360 both represent "big, flashy" systems with, you know, good hardware. So when you want to see what people are buying, don't forget to consider that it's not just Wii versus one of those two, it's Wii versus BOTH, because the 360 and the PS3 are both high-end "flashy" machines.
Also, like I said, 3 million PS3s and 6.9 million Wiis as of when I opened that page. I rounded the PS3s down and the Wiis up, actually.
3,000,000 * $600 = $1,800,000,000
6,900,000 * $250 = $1,725,000,000
And this doesn't count the money that people have spent on the 360. So it looks like the market is supporting the PS3 about as well (actually slightly more) than the Wii, if you just look at how much money has been poured into it. If you want to look at units sold, sure, the Wii's got more out there than the PS3 right now, but if you look at money, the PS3 is up. You're looking at it the way you want it to be, and that's fine. It's just like how you debate me by using terms you don't understand and changing the things I say to be more convenient. You want to pretend that things are one way when in fact they're not.
I don't know that that's the sole reason, but I do agree that the gimmick of playing old games lasts longer if you can pretend to have a "new release" every week or whatever. I've said this before; people would buy a ton of VC games up front if they were all released at once and then go "oh hey I played three of these for five minutes each and then stopped...I'm not buying any more eight-dollar ROMs." I've said this a few times before, I agree that it would be bad strategy, but ultimately it's because the whole thing is a gimmick and the idea is to keep people on board that gimmick as long as possible.
All I'm saying is that market demand in dollars has the PS3 slightly ahead of the Wii, and that doesn't even count 360 sales.
Sony has other ways of recouping, as well, including ad space in Home. But that's beside the point; I'm not making a business case for anything, I'm merely saying that it's horribly skewed to portray the market's demand in raw units sold when one item costs less than half per unit of what the other costs.
How is it a weak argument to show that more money has been spent on the PS3 alone than the Wii, without even counting the 360? All I'm saying is that "number of units sold" is not the ultimate factor.
Did you mean that it was my hardest argument for you to understand?
EDIT: Oh hey I also didn't count gaming-related sales in the PC market, which tend to be on the higher-end, tech-wise.
ok, I didn't actually read what you posted
please carry on
:-*
That is usually how it goes, so that's all cool.
well i can think of a few reasons the wii could go down but those really aren't either of them of them
it's underpowered in comparison to the PS3, or the 360, yeah, but to be honest it can make games look good enough if the developers try to make it look good enough, surely.
We'll see. I agree with your arguments on hardware superiority and all but Sony has done such a horseshit job of marketing their product and keeping exclusive titles for it that I can't imagine how long it will take for their console to be worth owning.
The 360 is the clear winner right now and it's immediate future (The next 1.5 years at least) is by far the brightest.
Pix or it didn't happen!
I don't even know if, at this point, you are still "in character" playing devil's advocate, but
jesus christ you really have to stop bringing up the whole "but if you don't understand why you enjoy something, then how can you possibly enjoy it?!?"
sometimes people just like to have fun. In fact, I'm willing to bet cash monies that the vast, vast majority of the gaming public doesn't sit around talking about what made a game fun, they just enjoy the games that they like.
It isn't rocket science. It is recreation. I read books a lot, and I don't sit and analyze most of them, I just enjoy them for what they are. I listen to a lot of music. I don't sit down and break down what each artist is doing on each track, I simply enjoy the music for what it is. I play a lot of video games. I don't construct fucking diagrams to show how this game used clever ploys to engage me with a unique control system by limiting my overall choices but providing the illusion of free will. I just fucking enjoy having fun.
It isn't that hard.
woooo
not a reflection of the power of the hardware
beat me to the punch.
yeah, that ain't the hardware's fault, that's just sloppy coding.
but.. hardware power means everything!
my world view is crushed!
Oh my god I know! I can't believe some of the stupid shit Sony pulled. Just totally unbelievable.
Ok, look, I own a Wii and I think you are drawing a real bad comparison here. The PS2 was slightly behind horsepower wise because it was the first to be released but it wasn't a full generation behind processor wise like the Wii is.
a few
but not enough to base an argument on, let alone an industry.
How can I stop making that point when I never started making it?
And the most successful restaurant in the world is MacDonald's, despite that the food is shit, because people eat it without thinking about what they're eating and without ever developing an appreciation for good food. I already know this, and I've said it many times.
Yes, I understand that you don't think about what makes things good and that's why you don't know why you like the things you like. I understand that you watch celebrity/reality TV and are deeply interested in Anna Nicole Smith's death because the media hit you in the face with it enough times and you don't think. What point are you making? Of COURSE the vast majority of the consumers of ANYTHING that isn't a niche product are completely ignorant of what makes it good. That's why, perhaps to Pata's dismay, graphics have historically been such a big deal in games; any retard can see shiny special effects at a glance, so games have been able to sell based on that for decades.
Also, it may not be "science" to you, but it IS science to the people who actually make the products and the people who actually appreciate the products.
I agree. It's not that hard. So why are you having such a tough time understanding that there are rules and principles behind games, just as there are in every other artistic medium?
That's fucking horrible.
And no, I do not blame whatever hardware that's running on. I blame that it's a lazy-ass license title.
i was just wondering
It is a relevant subject though when you are looking into the console's future.
but on the other i think you would be dogshit at it because your ideas about game design are so unflinchingly mechanical and black and white