Topic: Do you think the generation of HD games is going to screw Nintendo?

What is interesting about really high resolutions is AA is no longer needed.

(Some stuff on my ipad Air has no AA but also no jaggies.)

I doubt it. The userbase may separate more, but Nintendo will keep its strong following as long as they don't mess with them too far.

The entire appeal of HD gamee seems to often lie more with the graphics than gameplay, and while Nintendo prefers to focus on gameplay instead, they're holding up very well - and let's not forget how many people fall for PS+/XB Gold. A hollow demand in itself, and it can only increase, until the userbase had enough of it.

You mean the service that gives away free games?

Exactly. Not sure what he's talking about - PS+ is a great deal.

IIRC Xbox Gold has a "Games with Gold" program like PS+ does too, doesn't it? I don't own an Xbox console, so I haven't really been paying much attention to Xbox Gold.

The Xbox games are usually a weaker selection of games. But if like PS4 and Xbox (any) you are forced to pay for something like Live & PS+ to play games online on Nintendo hardware I will just stick to playing games offline despite their so called free games.

On PS3, it is. But on PS4, it's not only mandatory, Sony tries to justify it with covering server costs for online services.
But here's what's wrong with that:

• developers which want to offer online services for their games on PS4 MUST use Sony's servers - and pay for them.
• People try to justify it with faster downloads, which is pointless due to the extreme amount of storage space most PS4 games require - technically speaking, people still have to wait longer for their games to finish loading than ever before.
• Keep in mind that these "free games" are still only rented, since you can NEVER play them without PS+, even if you don't want to use it anymore.

Of course, Microsoft is much more blatant with GOLD costing 10$ per month, but at least you can keep the free games from the promotion indefinitely and without GOLD as a requirement. That doesn't make mandatory online fees on them any better, though.

Keep in mind that these "free games" are still only rented, since you can NEVER play them without PS+, even if you don't want to use it anymore

You forgot the part where I saved hundreds of dollars via PS+ exclusive discounts.

and I have saved thousands through Steam Sales/Humble Bundles without ever needing a subscription

That's your thing, I would be left having lost more than I saved. Also, I don't care how much you saved, you still can't escape anymore unless you give up on your "saved money" (which you most likely didn't keep all this time) to buy retail versions of these very games.

You are in the minority who spent hundreds of dollars in a few years on PS+. Most people don't and that means they only save tens of dollars and PS+ costs more than those tens of dollars a year.

From cdkeys.com - 360/Xbone is £25 PS+ is £35 one year.

That sort of thing would be good for me it is a trivial amount of money and would be good for trying new things.

I tried that by getting everything with the 3DS for a bit and wasted a ton of money.

The 360 one looks like the best deal you just get it no other restrictions. (And it has had some really good stuff in the program).

If you're paying more than $35 for a year of Xbox Live, you're overpaying.

I believe are the younger generations which gonna eventually screw nintendo... kids grown playing cod, halo, gta see nintendo as old stuff for old demented 30 years old like me.....

I don't think it'll be younger players per se, but the casuals and dudebros probably will. Those two demographics are slowly becoming the only ones that matter.

PS+ is a great deal for the vast majority of people since most people don't give a crap about replaying most games anyway, so it's a non-issue. Arguably a really smart way to get casuals in. But it is not something I wouldn't care about because I like actually owning games. Especially now since PS4 is new and PS3 would mostly have 360 games I either own or will own (for cheap!) or don't care about.

But anyway, Nintendo long-term will do way better with HD because they don't feel the need to waste tons of money for no reason, so they'll just do whatever and save the high-end HD graphics for when its needed or relevant (Hyrule Warriors is a great example, as it looks exactly as good as it needs to despite being a questionable use of the Wii U's graphical capabilities, because no one is buying Hyrule Warriors for graphics)

You probably don t know because you don t own a ps4, but the servers are not sony servers at all, the psn+ is one for the all console, so if you have ps3 and ps4 you can still use one acvount paying once, and whatever i am paying, the service works perfectly, the online is great, i can play with ppl all around the world without any problems, chatting all the time with no lag if i want.

DESTINY D1 servers worked perfectly, mario kart 8 still disconnects every 2 matches.... i still prefer to pay a small amount, less than 5 euro a month, for a service that works, and gives me also free games and disvounts, than zero for something that works poopoodoodoocacapoopledoopley...

Im confused how psn and xbox live have anything to do with HD games? & screwing nintendo?

I don't see Mario Kart 8 ever looking old. Nintendo's art design can evolve, but technically, there's not much room for growth with something like Mario Kart.

@arnoldlayne83 That's a terrible misinformation on your end. For the sake of "quality control", Sony no longer allows developers to setup their own servers for online functions. They did it because many multiplatform games had better online on XBox360, where the our-servers-only rule was already in full effect through Microsoft, so developers saved money on cheap servers for PS3 players.
However, when looking at it logically, Sony doesn't increase anything with the money people pay for PS+. The gaming servers Sony maintains for PS4 developers are fully paid by these very developers, with not a single penny ending up on Sony's end of the bill. Whether people pay for PS+ or not has no influence on that, so they make people pay by actively lying to them about the intentions of their paid service.