@CharlieSpot While people certainly have a right to be offended by whatever they choose, they don't have a right to knock those that don't share their offense. It works both ways with offense. Besides that, I think people are missing the fact that the oversexualized characters are exagerations of fantasy artwork, which is very sexualized. If you look at the ridiculous proportions of the scantily clad women and the overbuffed men that would make Arnold circa Conan the Barbarian jealous, without the mentalitity of how offended you are (and I'm referring to the offended people in general, nobody specific) you'd see that the oversexualization is blown to such ridiculous proportions that it's satirical. It's a joke made about the art style that this game is clearly modeled after. It probably doesn't hurt that it's controversal though. As Marylin Manson's carreer proved, there's no such thing as bad publicity and every person crying "foul" over the "offensive" characters, is someone giving free advertising to the game encouraging someone else to look into it. Once someone curious about the controversy checks it out, they will experience the great game behind the hyped up controversy. So kudos naysayers. You are helping the game sell copies! If you don't like something, don't buy it. Speaking out against it is only encouraging others to notice it.

@CoolCamel616 Hitman had almost identical sales and was also considered a failure. If publishers stopped expecting every game to sell like Call of Duty and instead laid down a budget expecting 3.6 million units sold, this problem wouldn't be happening. Much like movies find a way around smaller budgets and usually turn out better for it, developers would figure something out. 3.6 mil. should never be considered a failure in sales. It should be a goal to strive torwards. If you do better, that's even more awesome! Publishers are getting far too greedy with their bottom line. Granted, everybody kniws GTA V is going to be a mega hit, therefore it's safe to assume it's going to sell more units right off the bat. Tomb Raider and Hitman are well-known franchises, but they're not mega-sellers like GTA and COD. Never have been. So it's unfair to expect them to sell like that and unwise to fund them as such. Simple economics. As for Take Two "losing" money, they haven't had any new releases, so it's kind of dumb for them to compare profits for a period that had new games out last year. Obvoiusly if you don't have a new product out, you're not going to make as much money. GTA will more than make up for the "loss".

@19James89 @Intellips I think the Wii is playing a role in the poor sales of WiiU. At least to some extent. How many people bought a Wii and had to deal with the insane amount of crapware that came out for it? I know I regrettably bought my kid a ton of games that were utter garbage for it. I actually stopped letting him pick out what games he wanted and researched and picked out games for him because the majority of games were completely worthless. There are many people like me who have a ton of games they can't even give away, who are in no hurry to go through it all again on another Nintendo console.

@Suaron_x They should've went with a smaler touch screen at the least. Something more akin to a smart phone's screen that could ne produced at a cheaper price. The controller's nearly the size of a small console as it is! Seriously, the small model PSOne is around the same size! Plus, by making a smaller screen they could've made the controller more practical to use. Instead of mushing a bulky tablet and a controller together.

@QTEseven @roosteraxe1 That's not entirely true. The 3DS had kind of a rocky start for much the same reasons. Not enough good software available at launch. It was nothing near as bad as Wii U is doing though and it's doing fantastic now. Plus, most of the good games were only about six months away from their launch window for 3DS. Of course Nintendo's portable consoles have always spanked the competition in the end. It just seems like they put a lot more effort into marketing them. It helps that they have a lower price point and appeal to kids more. As a parent I can say I'd much rather buy my kid a 3DS game than a Wii game. That's something that'll keep me from hearing those obnoxious words every parent hates to hear while on a long drive..."I'm bored"

Ah Nintendo. Your need to be different is commendable. Making consoles so different that all 3rd party developers have trouble porting and designing games for your console is not. Releasing a console that's obsolete a year after launch is also not a smart move and barely adverstising your newest console while practically ignoring your upcoming games is just plain confusing. I know Nintendo will pull through this once all their main staple of games release, but they're really grinding Mario, Link and friends into the pavement. Relying solely on these titles to carry your new console just isn't gonna cut it anymore. Especially when the majority of these titles aren't even out yet (or in some cases even announced!). It's really starting to seem like the Wii U is going to make the Gamecube look like a huge success. It sucks, because there's a lot of cool ideas behind the system. If they'd made the main controller more practical(along with the option to use multiple of them), included a practical sized harddrive, designed a better online setup, worked more with 3rd parties and used more beefed-up hardware the Wii U would be flying off the shelves. Unfortunately none of these things are happening and that's a pretty long laundry-list of problems when there's two systems on the horizon that are better, stronger, already have most of these things implemented, are comparable in price (at least PS4 at only $150 more) and already have a much larger line-up of good games on the horizon. With a full year to get ahead of the compitition, Nintendo should have a huge arsenal of games under their belt. Both the other systems are going to have more good games available at launch than Wii U is going to have for it's first year. WTF Nintendo?

I'll say it again. Plain and simple. For every used copy someone buys, someone else had to sell a copy. People sell their games when they don't plan on playing them anymore. If you're losing that much money from used game sales, that means people aren't keeping your game. Which means your game couldn't have been that good in the first place. If you want people to keep your game, make a better game. Focus on replayability. Stop whining and blaming used sales on ruining your profits. I get that it's frustrating, but you have only yourselves to blame for making games that people get rid of so soon after buying them. Whining about Gamestop is basically saying "Pay us more money for our game that isn't good enough to keep." It's also saying to Gamestop "you should give us money for the games you bought from someone else that they didn't want." Gamestop might not be a good company to work for, but they are not the problem. Your games are. Stop pointing fingers elsewhere.

@xXxIRyanxXx @roosteraxe1 I agree. Borderlands 2 has great dlc. It's lengthy, reasonable priced and you can tell it was planned in addition to the game. Not originally as part of the game. The main game is still long and complete. When you're planning dlc for a game that isn't even done yet, that means you're withholding content that could've been put in the game so you can charge extra. Especially this particular dlc, which anyone who knows the story of, know just what a load of crap it is.

The biggest problem isn't used sales. As much as developers want us to think it is. It's what classifies as a good selling game now. Look at Eidos and their recent troubles. Tomb Raider and Hitman each sold roughly 3.5 million copies in the first month. That's really good. Better than the best seller's numbers were ten years ago. These games were both considered commercial failures. I know the costs of devlopement have increased, but I think devlopers would learn to budget their resources better if they had smaller budgets to begin with. With the next-gen's massive increase in raw power and RAM, I'm sure there's going to be a much more cost-effective means to devlope these games and still get a profit. They're not all going to have the massive sales of Call of Duty and it's unfair of publishers to expect that from developers. Plan for smaller, but respectable sales and you will still get a good product with higher profits. Without being considered a failure or having to whine about used sales causing your game to sell poorly. Besides, if that many people sold your game to the point where used sales are killing your profits, you didn't make that good of a game in the first place.

@Ilikeapples45 @roosteraxe1 MS shit on a lot of developers as well with that whole fiasco. Besides not giving the publishers any say so in when their games would release, they set the prices and most of their digital releases were still full price. The ones that dropped in price were out for quite some time before dropping in price. I'm talking about instant incentive to buy digital instead. Gamestop isn't going anywhere anytime soon. MS tried to fight them and gamers got pissed. Instead of developers whining about Gamestop and how evil they are, they need to start finding other ways to get people to buy new copies. Ways that don't involve online passes and pissing off customers.