Topic: Does It Bother You That Capcom is not making an HD Remake Of RE 1 For Wii U?

WTF? I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just saying that PS2 wouldn't stack up to GCN or Xbox if people would have cared about specs and online as much as they do now. You don't have the PS4 without the PS2.

What do you mean "Not only are we missing a Playstation?".

Did you just break or something?

I don't get what you mean. I'm just annoyed that people decided that graphics and online mattered in 7th gen, and not 6th gen. It really doesn't matter that much, though. I truly believe that PS3 is the path Nintendo would have taken if GCN was successful.

That would be a change in trend and therefore consumer tastes. I can't see how it bothers you that most people didn't have adequate internet in 2000 for online gaming and it was not a primary reason to buy a game compared to 2005 when people actually had passable internet and online gaming had proved itself.

So I've been mostly just watching stuff go down in this thread, and all I have to say is that your arguments have been some of the worst presented. You insist that there is no profit to be made on Wii U, but that's a lie. This isn't the same situation as FFXV: This is an HD remastering for a GameCube game. It's super cheap. It could make a freaking profit on Ouya. You're wrong, and I'm logging out again to go play football.

Ya, but it came later than expected, technically, because Dreamcast, GCN, PS2, and Xbox were all supposed to have a heavier online than they did. The internet didn't even need to be as fast as it is now, for obvious reasons(not as much data). Dreamcast was gonna run online games with 56kb/s or whatever, but then PS2 became market leader and Xbox Live was already a full fledged service that couldn't really be held back anymore. Online never got popular soon enough, like Nintendo and Sega thought it would, and Microsoft made sure they would be able to compete by having Xbox Live.

The GCN was even stereoscopic 3D compatible, but there wasn't even a viable way to get 3D screens. That means that GCN and Xbox were more advanced than they needed to be, which is why Wii was a lightly souped GCN and Xbox 360 was a souped Xbox. They couldn't afford to make entirely new consoles like Sony, but the PS3 bombed harder than either from a financial standpoint, so now it's really anyone's game again.

Nope.

Nope.

Nope.

The PS2 had the games people wanted to play. The PS2 was the only place that generation to play Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and most of the biggest franchises of that era. As for specs, the PS2 was still in the ballpark in terms of what it could do. Yeah, it was the second weakest console of that generation, but the difference between the Xbox and the PS2 is nowhere as pronounced as the difference in power between the Wii and the 360.

Online play while popular in that generation, would not have made an insane difference , since the sixth generation was where it started to get popular. Plus, Sony did push online play on the PS2, and touted it as a major feature of the system. Nintendo was the only one of that generation who turned a blind eye to online play. Sega, Sony, and Microsoft all embraced online, and made it a major selling point of their systems.

The thing is, people knew even during that generation that the PS2 was the weakest console of the bunch(barring the Dreamcast) and they simply did not care. It was the games that sold the PS2, and fact is, most of the popular games of the sixth generation were either exclusive to the PS2, or got perks that the other versions did not get. Take GTA for example. It was on both platforms, but PS2 owners got the GTA games months before they ever landed on the Xbox, and Gamecube owners never got them at all.

The PS2 sold because of the games, plain and simple. We can sit here 10 years later and play the "Had customers cared about this feature, or had Sony does this the PS2 would not have been popular" game all we want. I could play the "Had the N64 used CDs, it would have won the fifth generation!" all I want, but it changes nothing.

The PS2 blew the Xbox and the Gamecube out of the water, in a virtual curbstomp that was not even close.

At the end of the day, online while a selling point was not a deciding factor for a system's success in that generation, and the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube were close enough in specs, it where the power advantage the latter two had over the PS2 did not really matter. Do you think the casual consumer is really going to notice the differences in graphics when it came to the PS2 and Gamecube version of Resident Evil 4? No, the two games looked close enough, and the PS2 version offered more gameplay features than its Gamecube counterpart.

PS4 owners would not have bought a Gamecube or Xbox either when they arrived a year later. But let's play with this for a second. Suppose someone with the PS4 went back in time somehow, got trapped there, and had to make the most of it.

Guess what, it would not have changed a single thing. They would have still bought a PS2 since they already know that console would not only have the largest library of its generation, but would have the best third-party support, built-in DVD support that did not have to be activated with a separate remote like the Xbox, and a system that virtually everyone owned.

So yeah, a bunch of people went back in time, two thing would have happened. Either they don't buy the older consoles because they are used to modern consoles from this era, or they buy a PS2 and a GBA since they already know those would be the most popular consoles of the 2000s, and would have the best support.

Basically, this would not have changed anything for the Gamecube and the Xbox. They still would have lost the generation to Sony. The only real gain is that maybe those system get a few more sales from people who would give them a chance.

I thought the PS2 flew off shelves because it was a relatively cheap DVD player at the time. The games were just a bonus for most people

Yeah, I know alot of casuals got it because it was a cheap DVD player that could run Singstar

Actually, it's:

3DS: 780,000
PS3: 570,000
360: 190,000
Wii U: 90,000
PC: 20,000

So it did best on a Nintendo console and obviously many Wii U owners have 3DS's (like me, which is why I didn't buy it , because the 3DS is the best version with the amazing 3D graphics) and it did fine there too.

Not sure, I think it's all of it.

It does bother me, because Why is it NOT coming to WiiU? There's already a Wii version so it's not like the Controls have to change or anything. It seems like the WiiU version would be the easiest to convert.

That's what Sony thought too, hence their horribly misguided marketing campaign for the PS3 in launch year.

I don't know what your talking about because from what I can remember is that PS2 was really expensive and DVD's were kind of too. Not a lot of people got PS2...

I don't think there actually was a physical release for PC.

It's the best selling video game platform of all time...

I've never seen a physical one in the US (not even for order from a website), and I only remember seeing the Steam version being mentioned in press releases, but I can't really know for sure.

Like I said not a lot of people had the chance to get a PS2 ...