Hunter Rose

@PolishMountainMan
Amazon wouldn't have had a $20 credit on a $40 game anyway. I've heard some horror stories about some K-Marts that make me feel lucky mine is actually run well and knows what the hell is going on.

@Warlock234
Why are you two assuming he's rich? And even if it is, it has nothing to do with him being a pro athlete, since the only thing I could find is he's a radio announcer for Cal's football team. I can't imagine there's big bucks to be had there.

@embassy

For cryin out lout I hear vagrants of all colors talk like this and I live in a rural state, in a city with a population of about 50K...

There is NO way you'll convince me that no one in a larger city talks like this.

@Quayle
Since when does Staying with family = hotel?

Lack of reading comprehension or troll?

@GPrime101

@Syndicated01

Your argument makes sense, but I've never viewed the Diablo series as multiplayer focused. The first game had multiplayer almost as a bonus, mostly due to limited technology. The second's feature were much more robust, and there were spells and such designed to be more effective in a party, so there were some incentives for playing multiplayer, but it wasn't like you would never be able to finish the game going solo.

I've just never thought of multiplayer as the main focus of the series, because of how rich the single player experiences were. And maybe that's changed with D3. And even though there are many people out there who will buy the game... I won't be. Simply because my internet connection isn't stable enough for me to justify paying for a game I probably wouldn't be able to play consistently anyway. And that honestly makes me sad.

Well, I'm still glad the ESA took it seriously. If they didn't we'd have multiple states passing laws that successfully ban violent video games one way or another.

@Foetoid
Ah, I see... and actually it's not that at all. I've owned every home console Nintendo's put out since the NES, and bought the GC and Wii on launch day. More than anything I'm a fanboy of Nintendo and have defended against the "casual gamer" gripe to anyone who mentioned it to me. But I just wasn't so impressed with the E3 press conference to think that it was something I had to have as soon as it came out.

To answer your question, I judge the worth of a console on the games themselves and whether they look like they would be fun to play. Not the 'power' of the console. Many of the developers you mention didn't have any Wii U demo footage to show, which was one of my concerns. Another was that there wasn't even a mention of a price range for the console. I hope you're right that it's under $400, but I really have no idea on what it will end up being.

However, since a 3rd party developer that publicly bashed the Wii multiple times being positive about the Wii U makes me think maybe they're seeing something I'm not, which is entirely possible since we've seen very little of the Wii U. Which leads to me re-examining my thought process. It wasn't that it was Valve specifically, just that it was a well respected developer having a different attitude towards the next version of the console.

@GPrime101
Just curious...

Was I down-voted because I wasn't planning on immediately throwing my money at Nintendo?
Or was it because seeing Valve interested made me re-evaluate my thought process?

@trinica
I've been leaning against getting a Wii 2, but depending on what Valve does, I might have to re-evaluate that stance.