No, but you replied to my stating that 15 studios releasing a game every 3 months, is not quantity over quality, as all the simpletons above me were saying, by stating the maths. Then you waded in moping about them not being all triple A, that's when you changed the subject.
Yes, you said the average AAA game takes 3 years to make so that's why 4 per year made sense.
I am contesting the notion that these will all be AAA games, which removes the excuse you gave that it's okay if there are only 4 per year. If these are
not all AAA games, then four per year is pathetic.
The comments about "not really thought about it, as per usual" and "simpletons" seems unnecessary, but if that is how you perceive debates working, all the power to you.
Not what YOU need. It's the number Sony/Microsoft or Nintendo need to keep people happy. And YOU where the one complaining about the number of AAA titles Microsoft would be releasing.
I was not complaining. I was pointing out that four games a year isn't impressive and would be considered a "drought" if Microsoft's competition boasted about the numbers.
I included a list of games to support my assertion instead of just putting it out there and dipping.
I never said 4 games a year is a lot, I said 4 triple A titles a year would be a lot. The fact they will not all be triple A titles means we get a lot more than 4 titles a year!
Bringing back lists? You literally posted the lists before anyone else in this thread! I just picked them apart. You're flip flopping all over the place.
I don't get this logic. They said our first-party output will be about four games a year, but you think we're getting more than four games a year?
