This is probably good news for the share button on the PS4. Although it uploads to Ustream, a trend in Youtube is probably reflected in other hosting/streaming sites.

ENDING SPOILERS ALERT

And that ending. Man, I've never felt so conflicted about a game's ending.

While I think removing Ellie is dumb, I do like the placement of that title. Your eye is led down Joel's arm and down the gun to the title. Any of placement would be nice, but not as nice.

Haha, excepted this one looks like it DID get groomed. You'd think wolf hair is naturally coarse and clumped together.

It looks cool, but really unnatural. It's like the wolf is starring in a shampoo commercial.

Apparently, the console design was kept a secret right up to the last moment. They were using a phonebook in its place during the Sony E3 rehearsals.

Considering the current Wii U sales, I would hope they did more first party and fast.

Also, Ubisoft released ZombiU (a WiiU exclusive) and Assassin's Creed III during the Wii U launch, so calling their lineup 'shovelware' is disingenuous, especially since Nintendo also had two games at launch themselves.

DLC or timed exclusivity may not be on the same level as having Ubisoft develop a console-exclusive game, but the logic still holds: Nintendo needs to pony up the cash for either of those things, because it has worked for its competitors before.

Ha, I like that this is a lot less snarky and a lot more positive than the Microsoft one.

How is it a false equivalency? It's a given that Sony and Microsoft has paid and will pay third parties for game or content exclusivity, a system that certainly has helped their console sales.

I suggest that Nintendo do the exact same thing for Ubisoft (or any other third party) to pick up their own console sales and…

Well, perhaps they should start. It certainly hasn't hurt Sony or Microsoft.

You think Activision gives Microsoft those Call of Duty exclusivity deals out of the kindness of their hearts? Or Ubisoft that extra Assassin's Creed content to Sony?

It may not be Nintendo's responsibility to sell Ubisoft's games, but it's certainly their responsibility to sell the medium from which those games will be developed for.

I fully believe that this is ultimately Nintendo's fault. Like I said earlier, if Nintendo truly realizes that no one wants their system, they need…

That may be true, but Nintendo is clearly doing something wrong if the Wii U is selling well below projections. Again, if what's wrong is that there's no third party support, then Nintendo needs to go out of its way to woo that support. Ubisoft or EA won't develop a Wii U game out of pity.

Don't forget that all three console makers are also game makers. It's not like Nintendo can't make games for their own system or anything. Or at least they can pay for exclusivity like Microsoft loves to do.

Wii U sales are not Ubisoft's responsibility.

If Nintendo wants more consoles sold, they need to market it better and develop better games faster for their console, or at least pony up more cash to third parties for exclusives.

That sounds perfectly reasonable on Ubisoft's part. It's not their job to sell Nintendo's system for them, after all.

I remember seeing videos of people in Battlefield who do that (people taking point, people watching their sectors etc) although they don't necessarily use military jargon.

Thing is, these people are so coordinated as a team that they usually end up dominating.

The Walking Dead universe is just chock-full of zombies and convicts being transported.

Honestly, the only Nintendo title I'm really interested in so far is Pikmin. The others,as you guys already said, seem kinda safe.