I think Jay-Z said it best. Mo’ Money. Mo’ Problems. Didn’t Jay-Z say that? I don’t keep up with you kids. From Nextgen:

Nintendo sold 981,000 Wii units in the US during November according to the NPD Group, but according to James Lin, senior analyst at the MDB Capital Group in Santa Monica, Calif., “they could easily sell double what they’re selling.” Along with other industry analysts and retailers, Lin believes Nintendo could be set to lose out on more than $1billion this holiday, not including missed revenue opportunities from associated software sales that won’t materialize.

Man. That sucks for Nintendo. They could be taking over the world, but because they can’t make enough systems (wink, wink) they won’t make nearly as much money as they could be. So sad! Hang on. Where’s my tissue? For all you people looking for a Wii, head to Bestbuy and grab the one I won’t be buying. Its waiting on you.

[via NextGen]

Jayslacks.

I think we’ve mentioned here before how much we like co-operative multiplayer (to the point where it is a tipping point factor in convincing us to buy certain games), so this shouldn’t be too surprising. Anyway, according to an interview with Mercenaries Lead Designer Scott Warner, there won’t be any adversarial multiplayer in Mercenaries 2.

Eurogamer: Online co-op has been confirmed - will we also be getting PvP deathmatch scenarios?

Scott Warner: Unfortunately Mercs 2 will only feature a co-operative mode, although you’re certainly welcome to emergently turn the game’s robust mechanics into a deathmatch against your friend at any time!

And you know, I’m ok with that. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed with the constant demands that not only should every game have multiplayer, but that it should have 18 different multiplayer modes to make it worth a purchase. Adversarial multiplayer doesn’t work within the technological scope of the game; the only competitive/adversarial multiplayer mode I could see working in Mercenaries would be competing firms, where you compete for contracts by underbidding and duplicitous action, and then if you lose the contract, you sell out the other guy to the enemy, or work for him. Which would be awesome. Maybe next next-gen.

-Aegies

The Gears of War maps we’ve been hearing about for months are up for a surprise release this week, and the news on price is what’s been hinted at for a while now: immediately upon release, the Hidden Fronts map pack will release for 800 points, which is 10 dollars in non-MS money (and which works out to about 2.50 a map), and 5 months later, in September, the maps will be made free. I will probably buy these; I don’t think 10 bucks for half an expansion pack is unreasonable, and while yes, I understand that Epic “wanted them to be free”, Microsoft published the game and funneled an enormous amount of money into the project. Combined with their role as publisher, and as platform holder, and as retailer for the content essentially, their desire to sell the content is just as valid as Epic’s desire to give it away free, even if you wish Epic had won out. What’s more, Microsoft has committed to the content releasing for free in the Fall.

And yet, the bitching has already started. There continues to be a sense of entitlement amongst certain areas of the internet that claim everything should be free, although I never heard any complaints that fLow, a title which existed as a flash game for free, cost money. I can understand that mentality, but in this case I don’t agree with it. Not only in this case can you apply the “don’t like it, don’t buy it mentality” here, you can later apply the “don’t want to pay, so get it free in a few months” mentality. So why are people upset? I want opinions, people.

-Aegies