PDA

View Full Version : Told ya so...



Pages : [1] 2

Cheeze-It
07-20-2007, 08:11 AM
See, I was right. The Nintendo Wii totally dominated over the PS3 and the 360. I knew Sony's $600 PS3 was going to flop. And it has. Horribly. I don't even think Sony can catch up now. The Wii is at more than 3Million sold in Japan, whereas the PS3 just barely hit 1Million. Sure, there'll be some amazing games for the PS3 that're sure to be system-sellers. But, same goes for the Wii, too. And it'll be easier for people to justify buying a $250 console for a game than a $600 machine. But even if, somehow, the PS3 does catch up - Nintendo still wins in terms of profit. Sony is losing millions on these PS3s; whereas Nintendo is making money off of each Wii sold.

Nintendo is brilliant at marketing. Even the most anti-Nintendo person has to admit that. I mean, they were able to take a middle-aged, Italian plumber and turn him into a pop icon for millions of children around the world. And the parents don't even object to it. They don't object to their 5 year olds playing with this guy. Objectively, it's a creepy concept. However, because of Nintendo's amazing marketing department - we all love Mario and his even-more-creepy brother Luigi.

Plus, Peach is like, what, 14 year old or something? Yet, she's totally dating Mario. That's all sorts of wrong. But we accept it as cute. Bravo Nintendo. Bravo.

I don't even have a Wii.

That's all.

Thread for reference:

http://cboard.cprogramming.com/showthread.php?t=78927

Mario F.
07-20-2007, 08:16 AM
I wouldn't consider the japanese market a good indicator of the world market tendencies (despite being so huge with gadgets). Besides, what sells well in Kenya, doesn't necessarily in Germany.

As for the PS3, it takes times. Many people invested much on their PS2 and games are still scarce. Give it time.

Your Wii will wee on its pants.

Cheeze-It
07-20-2007, 08:21 AM
Okay, then we'll look at the worldwide market. The Wii is over 9million and the PS3 is at under 4million. They lost and it doesn't seem like they can recover. They've been number one for 12 years or so. The problem is, Sony is afraid of taking chances. Just look at their controller. It's been basically the same since the beginning. Tsk. Tsk.

We beat Sony.

SMurf
07-20-2007, 01:06 PM
I'm surprised the Wii is doing so well considering what Nintendo's doing in certain markets - my one (the UK), for example.

You will not find a Wii available to buy in any shop. Everywhere "sells" them, yet none have any stock for most of the year. Rather than pallet-loads of consoles they seem to ship individual units to retailers. I waited just over a month for Amazon to get... I can't imagine it being more than about 11 consoles, which sold out within 2 hours of a morning.

The problem is, it's no longer launch day. People expect to be able to walk into a shop and buy what they want. The PS3 is available. So our options are currently paying ~£450 ($924 at today's rate) for a PS3 or trying to pay £180 for a console we can't have.

Yes, their marketing is clearly superior. :rolleyes:

Neo1
07-20-2007, 02:38 PM
Sony is doing it all wrong, they did what Microsoft did with the XBOX 1.

In the previous generation, MS spent a long time developing a very potent gaming machine, with spectacular hardware, but in the meantime, Sonys little 230mHz PS2 was selling out. By the time the XBOX hit the market, the PS2 had been there for over a year, and everybody had gotten the PS, not wanting to wait for the XBOX.

During this year, the PS2 prices went down 25%, so even though they were similarly priced at launch, the PS2 was alot cheaper than the XBOX when the XBOX first came out. Also, the PS2 had accumulated one years worth of games, while the XBOX was an entirely fresh platform with next to no titles. This lead to very poor sales figures for MS. They were trying to sell technology, rather than a gaming console. So even though the XBOX was the superior console by a wide margin, Sony still sold far more PS2's, simply because they didn't wait for technology, but just released ASAP.

Why the hell Sony didn't repeat that succes this time around, beats me. Instead of doing the same thing, they decided to wait for Blu-Ray to become available, they had IBM develop this amazing 8 core Cell CPU and the results pretty much speaks for itself.

This time, MS got the 1 year advantage, they literally halfed the price of the base model 360 during that year, they got several major titles out for the 360, most notably Gears Of War, and the XboX 360 Elite almost matches the superior PS3.

So by the time the PS3 came out, it cost the same as 2 Xbox 360s, it had virtually no games available, and all it had that the 360 didn't, was a Blu-Ray drive and a Linux Distro, but to the average customer, this makes no difference whatsoever, who cares if the disc can hold 7 or 30 GBs? The games are good anyhow.

Sony pretty much screwed themselves over.

This discussion however, isn't about the 360 is it? Why on earth are you comparing the PS3 to the Wii? Wii is a totally different thing, and the target consumer groups are not the same.

PS3 and 360 is a traditional console with focus on graphics and sound quality, and versatility, like being able to play HD-DVD and synching with your PC and stuff, while the Wii, is all about Gameplay, and new ways to freshen up old concepts. The wii costs like ½ of aPS3, but has very poor performance. The people that would by a Wii, is essentially the same kind of people that would buy a Mac (Yay, sweeping generalizations!). They are on the lookout for something different and exciting, the Wii also happens to be cheap. A person that buys a Ps3 is more like someone who would buy a top of the line Desktop computer to be able to play FEAR in 1900X1200, traditional and high performance.

In essence, it's like comparing a Mercedes to a Toyota, it just doesn't add up. Oh, and consider the 9 million Wii's sold, let's assume a Wii costs 390$ (I'm not american, so i don't know what the price is over there). Consider the 4 million PS3s then, at 499$ per unit.

Nintendo: 390 X 9 Mill = 3510000000
Sony: 499 X 4 Mill = 1996000000

Suddenly, Sonys losses doesn't look that big afterall. Oh, and since we're comparing apples and bananas here, take a look at the Microsoft sales:

MS: 399 (20GB model) X 11,6 Mill = 4628400000

I would hate to sound too much like an MS fanboy, but to me, it seems like MS left Nintendo and Sony in the dust.

Cheeze-It
07-20-2007, 03:07 PM
Oh, and consider the 9 million Wii's sold, let's assume a Wii costs 390$ (I'm not american, so i don't know what the price is over there). Consider the 4 million PS3s then, at 499$ per unit.

Nintendo: 390 X 9 Mill = 3,510,000,000
Sony: 499 X 4 Mill = 1,996,000,000

Suddenly, Sonys losses doesn't look that big afterall. Oh, and since we're comparing apples and bananas here, take a look at the Microsoft sales:



This makes no sense. The Wii is $250US, with Nintendo profiting on each console sold. The PS3 is $599US; with Sony taking a loss on each PS3 sold. Your math doesn't show Sony's losses; it shows how much they made back (even though your console prices are wrong).



MS: 399 (20GB model) X 11,6 Mill = 4,628,400,000

I would hate to sound too much like an MS fanboy, but to me, it seems like MS left Nintendo and Sony in the dust.

Well, they didn't. They didn't leave anybody in the dust. Microsoft is in all sorts of suck with their machine. They're not profiting at all. Not to mention all the money they're spending on broken 360s.

Nintendo is the only company making a profit.

pianorain
07-20-2007, 03:15 PM
*tries to stay out of the thread*

I agree with Ethic.

Crap.
PS3 and 360 is a traditional console with focus on graphics and sound quality, and versatility, like being able to play HD-DVD and synching with your PC and stuff, while the Wii, is all about Gameplay, and new ways to freshen up old concepts. The wii costs like ½ of aPS3, but has very poor performance.I don't buy the "our graphics are better" line of defense any more. Graphics are nothing more than pictures to look at. Graphics are boring. Give me an actual game to play, with challenges a bit more than "hit the buttons in this order", "shoot them in the head", or "talk to everyone in the game". (Which is why Nethack continues to be awesome, while Madden '05 is in the bargain bin.)

You do put it very well, though. The PS3 and the 360 are indeed old-fashioned, traditional consoles, while the Wii is very much about innovation. I won't say that the not-Nintendo consoles are doing everything wrong. LiveArcade is a very sweet feature for the 360; the lack of such a feature on the Wii is a disappointment. I'm sure some development team over at Nintendo is work on said feature right now to fill up one of those little 48 screens.

Further consider that Nintendo actually makes a profit on each Wii unit, while both Microsoft and Sony take a loss for each console that they sell. How's that for innovation? A company actually makes a profit instead of taking a loss.

Cheeze-It
07-20-2007, 03:24 PM
I would hate to sound too much like an MS fanboy, but to me, it seems like MS left Nintendo and Sony in the dust.

Hi. Me again. Just read this:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6507&Itemid=2

Microsoft Xbox division just posted a $1.9Billion loss.

lol.

Neo1
07-20-2007, 03:27 PM
This makes no sense. The Wii is $250US, with Nintendo profiting on each console sold. The PS3 is $599US; with Sony taking a loss on each PS3 sold. Your math doesn't show Sony's losses; it shows how much they made back (even though your console prices are wrong).



Well, they didn't. They didn't leave anybody in the dust. Microsoft is in all sorts of suck with their machine. They're not profiting at all. Not to mention all the money they're spending on broken 360s.

Nintendo is the only company making a profit.

Well, as i said, i don't know about the american prices, i just looked it up on google and assumed it was correct.

Regardless of who makes the most money, your logic is still just as flawed as my pricing, the Wii is a different product entirely, and comparing it to PS3 makes little sense.

Neo1
07-20-2007, 03:28 PM
Hi. Me again. Just read this:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6507&Itemid=2

Microsoft Xbox division just posted a $1.9Billion loss.

lol.

Point taken...

Neo1
07-20-2007, 03:30 PM
Crap.I don't buy the "our graphics are better" line of defense any more. Graphics are nothing more than pictures to look at. Graphics are boring. Give me an actual game to play, with challenges a bit more than "hit the buttons in this order", "shoot them in the head", or "talk to everyone in the game". (Which is why Nethack continues to be awesome, while Madden '05 is in the bargain bin.)

Well, even if you don't buy it, that's still the way it goes. You know, it's not impossible to have an actual game, and the main focus on graphics, at the same time, there are a lot of games out there that prooves this.

divineleft
07-20-2007, 03:34 PM
lol @ you guys taking sides with corporations

SlyMaelstrom
07-20-2007, 06:02 PM
I don't get your point... does this make the Wii better than the PS3? I mean, I guarantee the Hyundai Accent sells better than the BMW M6, but does that make it a better car? Does it make the M6 a flop? I think you're comparing apples to oranges here.

BobMcGee123
07-20-2007, 07:08 PM
I for one am personally blown away. I'M GOING TO KILL MYSELF IN THE FACE.

Sentral
07-20-2007, 07:32 PM
I think the Wii is just a system everybody will buy, but nobody will play. Something that you only use when a lot of people are over.

Queatrix
07-20-2007, 08:50 PM
Actually, it's just considered cool to have one, not many people (including me) that I know have one. Not that big of a deal though, it's a green waste, there are hundereds of other things I would rather do with my money.

cboard_member
07-21-2007, 02:40 AM
>> I for one am personally blown away. I'M GOING TO KILL MYSELF IN THE FACE.

:rofl:

>> I think the Wii is just a system everybody will buy, but nobody will play. Something that you only use when a lot of people are over.

That pretty much describes the amount of usage my Wii gets. When I do use it alone, I usually play GC games (RE4 ftw!) so it's kinda like the GC I never had.

indigo0086
07-21-2007, 03:36 AM
Hi. Me again. Just read this:

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6507&Itemid=2

Microsoft Xbox division just posted a $1.9Billion loss.

lol.

The gains they made from their other divisions kept them out of the red. While not ideal they have sacrificed the profits of other ventures to keep the hit of the warranty from hurting them. Also the damage that would have occured had they not increased public relation and customer interest would probably cost them more in the short term.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2SArvCwCPzE&refer=home

I'm sorry to say that you being deluded doesn't change the fact that Nintendo's success doesn't hurt the other two companies. Nintendo makes totally different games and they just don't have the third party support to make them considered competition. They can be successful in thier own right without hindering hte success of the other two consoles. The only thing that will do Nintendo or Sony in are one another and themselves, and despite your fanboy street-preachings of Nintendo's second coming they are far from "failing".

I understand, I used to be a nintendo fanboy. Then I got a clue.

Cheeze-It
07-21-2007, 06:10 AM
lol @ you guys taking sides with corporations


Yes, I'm siding with a corporation. Especially one that takes
risks and encourages innovation. Honestly, I think that's a
pretty good reason to side with a corporation. Technology
is so complex nowadays, that corporations are the only ones
who really have the means to make it progress. I'm sure even
the smallest technological advances are the result of millions
and millions of dollars in R&D.

So, yes, I do have a problem with Microsoft and Sony. Reach
into your bag of tired ol' internet cliches and call it fanboyism
or whatever the hell you want. But both companies lack even
the slightest amount of creativity, originality or even insight.
Consumers expect that every generation will simply be a
graphical improvement. And Sony and MS did nothing but try
to meet those expectations. While Nintendo went a completely
different route: retaining the graphics of the previous generation,
but focusing more on immersive controls.

Neither MS or Sony seem to take chances. Or at least not
chances big enough for anyone to notice. That's not good for
anybody. It just stifles the market. Even something as trivial
as coming up with new names for their consoles was too much
of a risk for them. While Nintendo, who actually believed in
their product, chose what was probably the most criticized
product name in video game history. The Wii. It still sounds
stupid.

With the exception of some minor added functionality, Sony
hasn't changed their controller in 12 years. And some of that
added functionality, namely the Sixaxis control, was obviously
inspired by Nintendo. And I'm willing to bet that the next
generation will see both Sony and Microsoft focusing more on
motion sensing controls.

Nintendo takes chances and shapes the market. They do
deserve respect for that. Whereas MS and Sony don't - and
honestly, shouldn't be respected. From the first console
analog stick of the N64 to the DS and Wii. They create more
unique experiences..

lol. I don't even play video games, really. :)

indigo0086
07-21-2007, 08:53 AM
What's taking chances worth when you have at least 3 new games coming out by the end of the year and most of the ones you have now are mini/party/non-games? Nintendo HAS to be innovatinve because they refuse too see any developer on their systems do anything innovative without their console being to foil with which to do it. Without the waggle, developers were creating innovative games. Just because the hardware's there, and the software is there mainly by the first party, doesn't mean that innovation exists no-where else.

Microsoft and Sony really provide a means for which developers can express themselves by way of original downloadable games, original full games whether big or small. It's the developers choice for what interesting things to do with their games, and despite your rhetoric, developers do achieve innovation. I see the wii as a more expensive version of those fisher price toys. The only software worth having on it is made by nintendo, and despite being such an innovative company, an only develop so many games at a given year (see: Wii library).

It's your opinion I see that. But Nintendo being successful and selling so many consoles do not reflect on what prospects game developers have on their console. If you're a developer and you want to release a game using the best technology, to test your skills, to release a game with an ambitious story, you won't go to wii. More and more games want to provide such games, and even if they don't, you have the Xbox Live Arcade and Sony Playstation Network Arcade (or whatever they call it), to provide small serving innovative games, only minus the waggle, and twice the visual fidelity.

Mario F.
07-23-2007, 08:09 AM
I'm still having so much fun with my PS2

indigo0086
07-23-2007, 10:09 AM
As am I. I am currently Playing Jak 3 (not nearly as frustrating as Jak 2. And I need to finish the ratchet and clank series. Not to mention FFXII (if I actually end up liking it) and God of War II. Between my PS2 and my 360 with the next four month's lineup I see no need to spend money on the wii which to me has an uninteresting lineup for the year and of course past games. After the trainwreck of gamecube I am going to hold out on another nintendo product for a while.

swgh
07-23-2007, 04:24 PM
I still have a gamecube. Only has the one game

Resident Evil 4 :)

Yoshi
07-23-2007, 10:38 PM
I have a Wii, and loving it. While I would like an XBox 360 (no PS3, EVER for me), I am afraid I won't spend as much time on it with my computer still capable. At least I can do what my computer can't do on the Wii... I am by no mean a hardcore gamer, I only play games that is fun and no 2 hours cutscenes or BOOM headshots (I have my comp for that), and people like myself will not spend $600 on a console, and that's a lot of them.

Looking forward to SSBB :p

cboard_member
07-24-2007, 04:01 AM
I still have a gamecube. Only has the one game

Resident Evil 4 :)

Amen!

EDIT: >> While I would like an XBox 360 (no PS3, EVER for me)

x 2

firyace
07-24-2007, 09:21 AM
After having both xbox and ps2, I am starting to feel sick with the new generation of MS and Sony consoles. I personally did not play PS3, but the xbox360 is just a prettier version of an xbox. Whats worse is that I am playing almost the same games as I had on the PC, with a little bit inferior graphics (FEAR, Quake 4, Oblivion, C&C3 ). And whats the matter with them not changing the controllers? Sure the controllers has good designs, but after three generation? I at least need something a little different so that I at least "feel" like I am playing something of a newer generation.

I only played one game at stores for the PS3 (went to my friends house to play the 360) and thats NFS Carbon, which I have to say the graphics are nice (even though its very similar to xbox 360 nice), but its also a PC game that I already have played, and the PC provides my with better AA too.

I only played the Wii on one game and it was Wii sports. I really like how they tried to create new experiences and it was successful too. I personally hated Nintendo starting N64 and didn't buy anything nintendo after that, but this Console might be something worthy for a purchase. However, there is still the lack of games that I wanted to play (probably I only wanted to own Wii sports lol), and I feel that the controller had a certain lag to it too...

I am just gonna stick with my PS2 and PC for now...

Mario F.
07-24-2007, 10:52 AM
And whats the matter with them not changing the controllers? Sure the controllers has good designs, but after three generation? I at least need something a little different so that I at least "feel" like I am playing something of a newer generation.

I'm not following...

What use exactly came of the Wii controller? Do you think you can play, say Quake 4 (since you mentioned it), taking full advantage of this type of controller? I always found, from day 1 (there's a post somewhere) the Wii controller to be... stupid. It looks cool for a week. Then you get bored because frankly there's not much you can do with it besides playing silly sports games.

The same reasoning could apply to PC controllers. Keyboards, mice, pedals, joysticks, wheels. They are here for a long time. Much longer than the design you say old in PS consoles. They work. They are intuitive and many other controllers (including the Wii controller) derive from them.

If you look for inovation, don't mention the Wii controler unless inovation is good even if it comes at the price of uselessness or little practicality.

brewbuck
07-24-2007, 11:44 AM
If you look for inovation, don't mention the Wii controler unless inovation is good even if it comes at the price of uselessness or little practicality.

As you said, the Wii controller is great for sports games where the player has to physically move. So maybe you don't want to get off your butt and move around, that's your prerogative. But I think introducing more physical activity into video game playing IS innovative.

Nintendo wasn't the first to make a physical video game, but they are the first to design a general-purpose controller for them. Just because you don't appreciate the games doesn't make the whole thing useless.

Basically you're admitting that you prefer to sit on your ass. And then you turn that into some kind of strike against Nintendo.

pianorain
07-24-2007, 01:20 PM
I look forward to finding a good shooter for the Wii. The combination of controllers seems to almost be custom-made for a FPS. It's a far cry from being useless; I'm not sure if I can think of a game that wouldn't work or that would be awkward with the Wii controller.

Bah, why am I waiting? I'm sure some Nintendo fanboy knows how to get the Wiimote to talk to a computer.

Sentral
07-24-2007, 02:40 PM
I look forward to finding a good shooter for the Wii. The combination of controllers seems to almost be custom-made for a FPS. It's a far cry from being useless; I'm not sure if I can think of a game that wouldn't work or that would be awkward with the Wii controller.

Bah, why am I waiting? I'm sure some Nintendo fanboy knows how to get the Wiimote to talk to a computer.

It's already been done with Half-Life 2.

http://wii.hl2world.com/

firyace
07-24-2007, 02:53 PM
Isn't there Farcry and Callofduty for the Wii already?

Plus, I heard that you can hack the wiimote to use it on your computer...

cboard_member
07-24-2007, 03:31 PM
Yes and yes. I've only played CoD3 on the Wii, and I'll never touch another first person shooter on this console again. I found the controls impossible, especially the jittery aiming.

DavidP
07-24-2007, 07:28 PM
The problem is, it's no longer launch day. People expect to be able to walk into a shop and buy what they want. The PS3 is available. So our options are currently paying ~£450 ($924 at today's rate) for a PS3 or trying to pay £180 for a console we can't have.

Yes, their marketing is clearly superior.


It's a simple concept called supply and demand. You learn about it in any economics class, but since you obviously haven't taken one, here is a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

They are using this to their advantage...keeping the demand high.



PS3 and 360 is a traditional console with focus on graphics and sound quality, and versatility, like being able to play HD-DVD and synching with your PC and stuff, while the Wii, is all about Gameplay, and new ways to freshen up old concepts.


Has this become our definition of a traditional came console?! I object! That is not my definition at all! Did the Nintendo, SuperNes, N64, Sega Genesis, or Atari (all noted as traditional game consoles) focus on graphics and sound quality, and the ability to play HD-DVDs? I don't think so!

A traditional game console is a game console that focuses on gameplay! That is why everyone loves to go back to their 8-bit Nintendo games! The gameplay is amazing!

I don't consider the PS3 a traditional game console. I don't want all that extra crap to play HD-DVDs and such. I could care less. Personally, if I want to play a movie, I will buy a regular DVD (or rent one from RedBox). I will then go home and play that movie on my $30 DVD player which I bought from WalMart. I could care less about paying Sony an extra butt-load of cash for their Blu-Ray technology. I don't want to pay out of my pocket for what they claim to be better graphics. If I want good graphics, I will play Doom 3 on my PC. PC is far better graphics then any game console anyways.

Nintendo got it right. By my definition of a "traditional game console", I choose to call it the Nintendo Wii, because the Nintendo Wii focuses on gameplay! That's what makes a game console good!

Now...when it comes to innovation, the Nintendo Wii is also the most innovative! Traditional and innovative? Indeed...it is the best. PS3 is a bunch of crap.



The wii costs like ½ of aPS3, but has very poor performance. The people that would by a Wii, is essentially the same kind of people that would buy a Mac (Yay, sweeping generalizations!).


What do you consider poor performance? Are you one of those guys that has to have blazingly amazing graphics or else you can't live? I'm sorry.

Oh...and by the way...Macs are good computers (that's just a side note).



I don't buy the "our graphics are better" line of defense any more. Graphics are nothing more than pictures to look at. Graphics are boring. Give me an actual game to play, with challenges a bit more than "hit the buttons in this order", "shoot them in the head", or "talk to everyone in the game". (Which is why Nethack continues to be awesome, while Madden '05 is in the bargain bin.)

I echo that.



I guarantee the Hyundai Accent sells better than the BMW M6, but does that make it a better car?


It's a different concept here, however. Even though sales are a big factor, we are also taking innovation. If you want to talk about sheer processing power, then of course, PS3 is the more powerful console. Nobody can deny that....but does that make it better? Not necessarily.



I think the Wii is just a system everybody will buy, but nobody will play. Something that you only use when a lot of people are over.


I think that's a good thing, personally. It's unhealthy to sit at home all day by yourself and play Halo. I have a good friend who got a 0.0 GPA one semester in college because it's literally all he did. We can draw a few conclusions from that. #1: my friend probably needs to learn self control, and so do all other Halo/Counter-Strike/World-of-Warcraft addicts. #2: an addicting video game isn't necessarily a good thing.

Nintendo wants people to have fun, and be active while playing. This encourages groups of people to play, and thus have social interaction. That is good. I am not saying that the Nintendo Wii cannot be played by oneself, because it surely can...but Nintendo wants people to have a social life...which I think is a good thing. I, for one, don't want to waste my life.



I do have a problem with Microsoft and Sony. Reach
into your bag of tired ol' internet cliches and call it fanboyism
or whatever the hell you want. But both companies lack even
the slightest amount of creativity, originality or even insight.

I echo that.



If you're a developer and you want to release a game using the best technology, to test your skills, to release a game with an ambitious story, you won't go to wii.


Excuse me?! So if I want my game to have a good story, according to you, I can't use a game console that has a little less processing power? Darn...I guess I will just have to throw in the towel and admit that all those amazingly cool NES games just had crappy gameplay and story lines....because no game that runs on a console with less power than the PS3 can have an ambitious story.

If I want to "test my skills", as you say, then I will program to the best of my ability, and write algorithms and code that is efficient and innovative. I can do this whether I write games for the Wii or the PS3. I think I will go for the Wii.



Do you think you can play, say Quake 4 (since you mentioned it), taking full advantage of this type of controller?


Actually I think that would be loads of fun.



So maybe you don't want to get off your butt and move around, that's your prerogative. But I think introducing more physical activity into video game playing IS innovative.

I agree 100%.

All right, now lets look at some hard facts:

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_consoles_and_handhelds) the Wii has sold 8.6 million units, while the PS3 is trailing at 3.9. The Xbox360, with its 1 year head start, is at 11 million.

The Nintendo DS has sold over 40 million units, while the PSP trails at about 25 million units.

Also from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_launch#Sales):


On June 4, 2007, it was announced that the Wii was outselling the PlayStation 3 by a five-to-one margin in Japan.[51]. As of July 3 2007, this has increased to a margin of six to one.


Also from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS3):


Conversely, the PS3 was given the number-eight spot on PC World magazine’s list of “The Top 21 Tech Screwups of 2006,” where it was criticized for being “Late, Expensive, and Incompatible.”[147] GamesRadar ranked the PS3 as the top item in a feature about game-related PR disasters, asking how Sony managed to "take one of the most anticipated game consoles of all time and — within the space of a year — turn it into a hate object reviled by the entire internet," but added that despite its problems the console had "untapped potential."


Now, from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042601269.html):


Ken Kutaragi, the man who led Sony Corp. into the game console business, will step down as chairman and CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. (SCEI), the company said late Thursday...That move was viewed by some analysts as a response to several missteps in the launch of the PlayStation 3. The launch date was delayed and the console was widely criticized as being too expensive...


Now, from MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18335424/#storyContinued):


Kutaragi's most recent brainchild, the PlayStation 3 console, came out in November but was marred by embarrassing production shortages and a $600 price tag that some Sony fans said was too steep. For the past several months, Sony has resorted to giving away free game titles and other marketing gimmicks to spur sales.

Sony has also struggled to expand beyond the young, male demographic of so-called "hardcore" gamers. Investors have been grumbling for several quarters that Sony has failed to attract women, young children and older gamers to its products, and its market share has shrunk as a result.


According to NexGenWars (http://nexgenwars.com/):

51% of consumers pick the Wii.
19.8% pick the PS3
29.1% pick the Xbox 360

NexGenWars also reports the following sales:

Xbox360: 11.59 million
Wii: 9.05 million
PS3: 3.85 million

prog-bman
07-24-2007, 08:51 PM
Arguing on the internet is like running in the special Olympics, even if you win you are still retarded

Word.

Mario F.
07-25-2007, 10:17 AM
Basically you're admitting that you prefer to sit on your ass. And then you turn that into some kind of strike against Nintendo.

Basically you are right. I do prefer to sit on my ass playing these games. But as you said, that's my prerrogative. It would be hardly a good thing to use that as an argument against. That wasn't my intention.

What I sincerely doubt, and that's my argument which I explained meakly due to lack of time, is that this type of controller has a future in all but the most specialized type of games.

The Wii controller is not an isloted accident. The technology isn't new either. It has been shown on several fairs and other technological gathering places. Companies have shown some interest. The game industry too. However, as far as the latter is concerned, the most visible argument used in some of the documentaries I've seen is that it is hard to put into practice in most modern games (the ones most played by current gamers, strategy, action shooters and RPGs). This limits seriously the usefullness of such a controller. It may make sense only as a addon product. Not as a flagship technology as the Wii controller tried to be.

EDIT: In other words, the Wii controller is a novelty. The right thing for an unprepared market of gadget lovers. It will soon probably fall out of use and the gadget lovers will move on to new more interesting and useful (or not) things the builders will throw at them. Useful technology is the one that retains its value after the initial crazed has passed.

indigo0086
07-25-2007, 10:52 AM
You can play your wii and ds games all you want, but the most you're going to get from them are bite sized but simple mini to non games. The few "epic" games you will get will be cookie cutter RPG's that are in pale comparison to what can be found on other consoles.

People act as though graphical advancements are somehow unnatural to game development. Even in the days of SNES and N64 was nintendo boasting about it's visual quality over it's competitors. Games looking better as the generation went on is a natural progression of gaming consoles. Nintendo's doing it now, only they are doing it slower because as much money as they are making they are a cheap company who does not want to spend the same amount of money to spring for visual upgrades as their competitors. If the price of current tech were cheaper, they'd buy it, and fanboys will eat crow for their hypocrisy.

My last point. Remember when nintendo published and developed games which all the fanboys called new and innovative...did you not sit on your ass and play them? Did you not have a controller (however badly designed) it was and like it because it demonstrated use of the technology and had great gameplay without an extra?

Nintendo waggle ended with the Powerglove

pianorain
07-25-2007, 12:35 PM
However, as far as the latter is concerned, the most visible argument used in some of the documentaries I've seen is that it is hard to put into practice in most modern games (the ones most played by current gamers, strategy, action shooters and RPGs).This is an absurd argument. Assuming Starcraft or Civilization is an accurate representation of strategy games, little more is needed other than a pointing device. A simple control layout can use the nunchuk for camera movements and the remote for pointing, selecting, and clicking. I haven't seen any RPG that would require much more than that either. The controllers seem quite practical for action shooters as well.

Basically, take an xBox controller, break it in half, and replace the left joystick with controller movement. I would agree that the button layout makes the use of several buttons on the remote awkward at best, but by no means does it follow that the entire setup is a poor choice for controllers.

abachler
07-26-2007, 08:54 AM
The Wii is very market focussed. The PS3 may be lagging in the console market, but it has other markets, whereas the Wii is pretty much just a game console. There are companies using the PS3 to analyze MRI data, which will bring the cost of an MRI down so that even clinics will start to have one. The Wii is a toy for children, the PS3 is a tool. Trying to say one is better than the other is like comparing apples and sledgehammers. In the specific application of gaming, the PS3 definately is out of the running. People who spend $600 on a piece of gaming hardware dont buy consoles, they buy computers. Sony once again completely missed the american market for consoles. The majority of console gamers in the US are either children or the low income labor force. Kids have a big say in which console to buy, but with a $350 price difference, I doubt that it can override the voice of their parents wallet. The parents who have $600 to plunk down on a piece of tech for their kids, will most likely just spring for a computer, which is a lot more functional than a console, and cheaper to keep upgraded.

From a technical standpoint, the PS3 is a far superior product, but Sony priced it out of its market niche. If they were $250 like the Wii, noone would buy the Wii. In fact, we would probably have a cluster of them in the office for crunching numbers. At $600, i can buy rackmount servers to crunch my numbers, and I dont need some proprietary compiler to write code for them. Their application in MRI makes use of their powerful GPU. Its cheaper to buy a PS3 than it is to buy a rackmount server then add a high end GPU to get the floating point crunching power. Sony needs to stop masturbating over their theory of a high end console market, the high end console market is called the commodity computer market.

firyace
07-26-2007, 11:47 AM
Yeah, there is also people who buy PS3 for folding.

But as an individual, who will buy this? Who would buy a console to analyze MRI data at home?

Sure it can run linux, but so does all of the computers. I am not saying PS3 is not a superior product, but it does not mean anything if you are talking to the gamers that it can run MRI data. I personally would want a PS3 at my office though since we are using a $5000 computer for 3d cardial simulations that probably a PS3 can do better, but my boss would say no cuz it doesn't look good in the office.

And like you said, if people have enough money to buy a PS3, they could look at PC gaming too, since at least the parents can use it after their kids finished with their games.

As for the controllers, the controllers for x360 and ps3 got to be the most practical no less, thats why they are using it again and again. But as for epic games are concern, thats still up to the developers. Developers don't based on the controller it uses for the games, they based on the market shares on the console to see if it is profitible. If more consoles in the market, more games would be produced for it. I am not saying the Wii has a better controller, I am saying that I would pick that controller for the reasons that I need a breath of fresh air. I have start using ps1 style controllers for like 10 years now and it is just boring that it is the same old design again and again. That doesn't mean I am gonna buy a Wii though, as the games are still not very attractive for me and I don't really play that much games anymore.

abachler
07-26-2007, 01:04 PM
If you are focusing on the game controller beign boring, then perhaps its the games that are boring, not the controller. Look at computers, they have been using the same controllers now for decades, because they work.

Cheeze-It
08-05-2007, 06:13 AM
Yes and yes. I've only played CoD3 on the Wii, and I'll never touch another first person shooter on this console again. I found the controls impossible, especially the jittery aiming.

That's kinda lame. CoD3 was one of the earliest titles for the Wii.
Metroid Prime 3's controls are getting amazing reviews; as the
developer has actually had some time to refine them. The
Wii control system is way more intuitive for FPS control than
the dual analog system. Or, at least as the potential to.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21802.html

Now tell me that doesn't look awesome...

...actually don't tell me that, because then I'll call you a liar.'

Man, just thinkin' 'bout makin' the morph ball jump gets me
excited.

Oh man, even the graphics rule. It's hard to notice, but
sometimes you can see Samus' reflection in her visor. Sweet.

cboard_member
08-05-2007, 09:19 AM
That's kinda lame. CoD3 was one of the earliest titles for the Wii.
Metroid Prime 3's controls are getting amazing reviews; as the
developer has actually had some time to refine them. The
Wii control system is way more intuitive for FPS control than
the dual analog system. Or, at least as the potential to.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21802.html

Now tell me that doesn't look awesome...

...actually don't tell me that, because then I'll call you a liar.'

Man, just thinkin' 'bout makin' the morph ball jump gets me
excited.

Oh man, even the graphics rule. It's hard to notice, but
sometimes you can see Samus' reflection in her visor. Sweet.

Awesome :)
I agree with the intuitiveness - it seems the CoD3 developers just wanked it up, or maybe I'm just too picky (I noticed nobody else has this gripe, or they're keeping quiet about it).

pianorain
08-06-2007, 12:00 PM
Awesome :)
I agree with the intuitiveness - it seems the CoD3 developers just wanked it up, or maybe I'm just too picky (I noticed nobody else has this gripe, or they're keeping quiet about it).Agree with the CoD3 wankyness; I was just trying to keep from posting a redundant comment.

Cheeze-It
09-02-2007, 01:41 AM
For those of you complaining about controlling FPS
games on the Wii, well... boo to you. Metroid Prime 3
just came out and it's freaking awesome. Better than
dual analog control by a billion times.

In your face, Halo!

cboard_member
09-02-2007, 08:25 AM
I can't wait till it's out here - wikipedia says October :(
I'm definitely going to have to sell something to be able to afford it though.
More :('s

twomers
09-02-2007, 08:52 AM
You can sell your car, Ahl!

Cheeze-It
09-02-2007, 05:23 PM
I can't wait till it's out here - wikipedia says October :(
I'm definitely going to have to sell something to be able to afford it though.
More :('s

First of all, come back to EntropySink. Second, check these out:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/24117.html

(IGN Review) http://youtube.com/watch?v=JIDEiIrKkaw

Don't worry about the spoilers the IGN review warns you about;
you'll forget about them before the game comes out.

Third. Sell your xBox 360 because it's just going to brick soon
anyway. I believe that's what they call it. Bricking. To Brick.

And skim this thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179572

Wraithan
09-02-2007, 07:02 PM
All the consoles I own, I also emulate on my PC because it is more convenient for me (it is legal due to the fact that I own, and made sure to get matching bios if I couldn't rip it myself) I don't own any of this generations consoles but my roommate does own a wii and 360, I have to say, I play the 360 more, often times when I am going to play games, I just got off a 10-12 hour shift, then went to the gym for an hour or two, then I come home and honestly do not have the energy for 'active' gaming. Just my 2c

cboard_member
09-03-2007, 01:34 AM
First of all, come back to EntropySink. Second, check these out:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/24117.html

(IGN Review) http://youtube.com/watch?v=JIDEiIrKkaw

Don't worry about the spoilers the IGN review warns you about;
you'll forget about them before the game comes out.

Third. Sell your xBox 360 because it's just going to brick soon
anyway. I believe that's what they call it. Bricking. To Brick.

And skim this thread:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=179572

OH. MY. GAWD.
Dude stop it, it's torture.

Cheeze-It
09-03-2007, 05:38 AM
All the consoles I own, I also emulate on my PC because it is more convenient for me (it is legal due to the fact that I own, and made sure to get matching bios if I couldn't rip it myself) I don't own any of this generations consoles but my roommate does own a wii and 360, I have to say, I play the 360 more, often times when I am going to play games, I just got off a 10-12 hour shift, then went to the gym for an hour or two, then I come home and honestly do not have the energy for 'active' gaming. Just my 2c

It takes no more energy to play a Wii game than any other game.