According to some people here, what you’re asking for is a “gimmick.” I tend to think of it as a “reason.” The only reason I’ll ever switch to Xbox One or PS4 is because (insert game franchise here) stopped making games for the current consoles.

And, they only switched to a new console, because the console maker MADE a new console. AND, the console maker only MADE a new console, because they started to see sales dwindle; NOT because they have a great, fresh new idea for gaming that necessitated a new console. This is my problem with the state of console gaming at this time, and all 3 major parties are guilty of it.

Nope. I only purchase new systems, because the company offers me something new to do, not because I blindly buy into some pre-designated idea that consoles have “cycles,” regardless of whether or not I’m actually buying something new.

The Xbox One, based SOLELY on the information we have today (because that’s all any of us has) , offers absolutely nothing new that a software update to the 360 and an upgrade Kinect (that most don’t even want) wouldn’t be able to match.

Have you tried the TVii system? They have a partnership with “content providers” such as Time Warner, Dish, DirecTV, and Cox to do exactly what MS was so excited to announce today.

Not discounting MS, and not saying, “Nintendo was there first!” But, merely discussing why it is that when N does it, it’s stupid and short-sighted, or — at best — extraneous; however, when another company does it, it’s brilliant, revolutionary, and necessary. Those aren’t your words, nor do I think that was your point. I merely sharing where I was coming from with my original question to you.

Perhaps you miss my point? All of the non-game aspects that MS is touting, already exist in the 360. They’ve only been tweaked (most on a software level, not even hardware) to fit into this new system.

I am the FIRST one to ever say “power matters least,” and you can see that in any comments I’ve made here, at Verge, or Kotaku (even today, I made a post about how sick I am about power and graphics driving new systems).

The only reason I buy any new systems (these days), is because they afford me NEW ways to play games that I never could before. I bought a DS for the dual/touch screen gameplay, I bought a Wii for motion play, I bought an Xbox 360 for HD play, I bought an iPhone for touch-control, and I bought a WiiU for dual screen gaming.

I don’t see anything with the Xbox One that offers me a NEW way to play. That was my point. There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING new with this system, other than power (presumably, given the generic stats), software upgrades, and a new Kinect-sensor.

I agree the WiiU is not where it should be, but I wasn’t referring to its success as much as its innovation. You seemed positive about MS innovation with features already in the WiiU, and was just wondering what you thought of Nintendo’s use of those same features.

So, the big take aways from the new Xbox are:
1. Kinect Sensor (upgrade)
2. SmartGlass (carry-over)
3. Media Integration (carry-over/upgrade)
4. Achievements (upgrade)
5. Voice Activation (carry-over)

How, exactly, is this (presumably) $400 better than my current 360?

I’d be interested to hear your take on the WiiU, then, which is already integrating with your cable system, Netflix, Amazon, etc. Because — from what I remember — a large part of discontent from gamers re: Nintendo, was their focus on “non-game” features.

There is a cultural (though, not etymological) difference between “indie” and “independent.” 22Cans is independent, because they are not owned by a publisher. They make a game, then find someone to publish it. It’s no different that independent movie directors who make a movie, then find a company to distribute it.

“Indie,” on the other hand, refers — again, in a culturally-aware fashion — to a low-budget, small team of fairly unknown artists trying to break-in to their respective business. Ironically, achieving the success they were pursuing automatically strips them of “indie cred,” even if the same team of people makes a new game for the same money. Because they achieved their goal, they are then considered — by people like you — to have sold-out.

Polygon correctly refers to 22Cans as “independent.” Their “indie” status is, apparently, up for debate.

I have the opposite problem. I don’t have the TIME to spend on the length of a game that a $60 game usually is. I wish I could travel back to 1991 me and give him all my money and say, “Enjoy it now, son.”

BS:I sold 3.7mil. copies, and while I don’t have the full numbers, I don’t think anyone would call BL2, GTAIV, or any of Take Two’s other titles “flops.” Which, means that this loss probably doesn’t have anything to do with, “Gee golly, if only OTHER gamers were more cultured like me and bought these games, this wouldn’t happen!”

It’s more likely a case of Take Two not managing itself correctly (e.g. spending too much on advertising {for the love of god, they aired BS:I commercials during Grey’s Anatomy — and, I know that, because my wife came in and asked me about it…though never bought it, thus proving my point of reckless advertising}, paying the wrong personnel too much, not striking cost-effective contracts, and probably a number of other things involved in publishing that I don’t know about).

Didn’t this same exact article re: Nintendo a few weeks ago spawn thousands of “doom and gloom” comments all over the Internet? Interesting…

There’s an app like this for the iPad and iPhone/Pod. I forget it’s name, but the iPad sits on the table as the “card table” and your phones/pods are your “hands.” You can then play any game you’d like, as it’s just a card dealer.

The fact that it stays true to the rules of poker should HELP the score, not hinder it. If I wanted to play a fresh, new-style card game, I’d play one of the million of digital CCG out there. This is poker, and it’s poker done well (with a fresh spin). Not saying the 6.5 isn’t deserved, but it shouldn’t be counted DOWN for being “just straight-up poker.”

Why BL2 didn’t win the Best Writing award at BAFTAs (don’t even think it was nominated) just for Tiny Tina alone, is beyond me. It’s easy to chalk her character up to a bunch of randomly spouted Ebonics, but there’s some definite skill and character behind her.

And the most accurate.

Is it too cheap of me to think that $.99 for 1 table, and IAP for others is expensive? It’s okay to say, “Yes.” I can take it.

You make a lot of sense. They were too open with information, something changed midstream, and now they’re paying the price. Whether what changed midstream was negligence, false advertising, or malicious intent is for the court to decide.

But, as you said, the unintended fallout could be game devs watching from the outside saying, “I don’t want that to happen to me, so I’m locking this ship down. No communication.”

What if the band says they’re going to do a more rock sound, and instead you got electronic (like Radiohead did with “Amnesiac,” where they said they were going back to their rock roots, and that album clearly was not a reflection of that)? Are you allowed to sue them?

What you’re giving as examples are very objective. Promised me quantity Y, and gave me quantity X. What Gearbox did, though misleading, was not so cut-and-dry. There’s just too much open to interpretation, especially intent.

- Was the act of misleading provably intentional and malicious?bq.

I think this is the only strong part of the suit. If they can prove that Gearbox never had any intention of including what they showed, and that they purposefully tried to cover it up, then there’s a case. If it was a matter of “things change while in production,” then it’s not all that strong.

I wasn’t saying this didn’t occur, was just asking do I get to do this every time I’m not happy with a movie, or something was left out? Again: where do we draw the line? The courts will not keep hearing these cases (as you’ll note in the article, it didn’t even go to court; so, it’s really not even an analogous situation).