I have been questioning nintendo a lot lately

It would've been nice....but I'm glad they didn't. I had to sell mine due to "needing money" for my illegal prostitution problem, and then I would have to go spend 400+ if I wanted another one! But, that's besides the point.

I'm just mad that 3rd parties are just now starting to somewhat push the gfx department.

When a new console comes out you always see cool graphics and cool hardware. I thought the wii's graphics were great untill I played the 360 for the first time last year. To be honest I really do wish that Nintendo had better graphics on the wii. It's great and all that they have motion controls but it could have been so easy to make good graphics on the wii. It's not like nintendo doesnt have enough money it's just that they choose not to. How many times have you read an interview with miyamoto and he says"I choose not to do this"?. Who knows mabey someday graphics on nintendo will be so good that we will see every string in links clothes.doctores143

ya that would be cool since if nintendo had more powerful graphics maybe it would get more 3rd party games like cod 4 and fallout 3

Well the thing is, if they wanted to make Wii a more powerful system then it'd be a lot more expensive too. The starting price would probably be like $350 instead of $250. Of course, many people probably wouldn't mind the extra money for the better hardware and graphics, but Nintendo makes it that way so it'll be more accessible to people who can't afford to spend that kinda cash.Chojuto

This is the perfect answer.

We all wish that the Wii were capable of better graphics..... but the fact of the matter is that if the Wii had better hardware, it would be much more expensive. If it were more expensive, it would be less popular. Face it, most Wii sales are spur of the moment decisions based on hands-on experience with some friends. "This is really fun!" "Yeah, and it's only $250!" "Wow, I'm gonna get one! ...As soon as I can find one!"

The price is right because people are obviously willing to pay it. If it were $350, it would most likely be out of the price range of too many people. Nintendo made a conscious decision in the design, and you can read all about that here. Price wasn't the only factor; they also believe that simply improving graphics is an "inefficient" path in console design, while improving the interactive side can lead to real progress.

[QUOTE="Chojuto"]Well the thing is, if they wanted to make Wii a more powerful system then it'd be a lot more expensive too. The starting price would probably be like $350 instead of $250. Of course, many people probably wouldn't mind the extra money for the better hardware and graphics, but Nintendo makes it that way so it'll be more accessible to people who can't afford to spend that kinda cash.JordanElek

This is the perfect answer.

We all wish that the Wii were capable of better graphics..... but the fact of the matter is that if the Wii had better hardware, it would be much more expensive. If it were more expensive, it would be less popular. Face it, most Wii sales are spur of the moment decisions based on hands-on experience with some friends. "This is really fun!" "Yeah, and it's only $250!" "Wow, I'm gonna get one! ...As soon as I can find one!"

The price is right because people are obviously willing to pay it. If it were $350, it would most likely be out of the price range of too many people. Nintendo made a conscious decision in the design, and you can read all about that here. Price wasn't the only factor; they also believe that simply improving graphics is an "inefficient" path in console design, while improving the interactive side can lead to real progress.

Wrong Wrong Wrong

both of you. The xbox360 arcade costs $279 and still has HD graphics just no hard drive... like the wii

The xbox360 arcade costs $279 and still has HD graphics just no hard drive... like the wii wolverine08

And that was not possible three years ago. If it were, it would've cost $279 at release.

It might be possible now for Nintendo to release a new version of the Wii with updated hardware for $250, but that would be a terrible business decision. People are buying it up at its original price with its original configuration (for the most part). The fact that there hasn't been another model of the Wii is a testament to its success.

My original point was that in 2006, the Wii was the right price considering its hardware. That's changed in the last two years since technology advances so quickly. If the Wii had been released in November of 2008, it would most assuredly have better hardware capable of better graphics, since the technology is cheaper now than it was then.

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

[QUOTE="Chojuto"]Well the thing is, if they wanted to make Wii a more powerful system then it'd be a lot more expensive too. The starting price would probably be like $350 instead of $250. Of course, many people probably wouldn't mind the extra money for the better hardware and graphics, but Nintendo makes it that way so it'll be more accessible to people who can't afford to spend that kinda cash.wolverine08

This is the perfect answer.

We all wish that the Wii were capable of better graphics..... but the fact of the matter is that if the Wii had better hardware, it would be much more expensive. If it were more expensive, it would be less popular. Face it, most Wii sales are spur of the moment decisions based on hands-on experience with some friends. "This is really fun!" "Yeah, and it's only $250!" "Wow, I'm gonna get one! ...As soon as I can find one!"

The price is right because people are obviously willing to pay it. If it were $350, it would most likely be out of the price range of too many people. Nintendo made a conscious decision in the design, and you can read all about that here. Price wasn't the only factor; they also believe that simply improving graphics is an "inefficient" path in console design, while improving the interactive side can lead to real progress.

Wrong Wrong Wrong

both of you. The xbox360 arcade costs $279 and still has HD graphics just no hard drive... like the wii

Isn't that after the price drop though? Wasn't it originally like $300 or $350?
Oh and also, Wii has more technology in it's controllers. A Wii-remote alone normally costs $40, and a nuchuck is $20. But that still wouldn't make it up if the Xbox360 Arcade did in fact have a starting price of $279, but I'm pretty sure that's a price dropped price.

i dont mind the graphics the lack of games for gamers bothers me. Nintendo refuses to see that there is a difference between people who just play games and people who call themselves gamers.I wouldnt mind if nintendo started making 8bit and 16bit consoles as long as they made games for gamers and not for casual game players webbut

I think that it is quite arrogant and elitist to claim that "hardcore" gamers are "gamers," as "hardcore" and "casual" gamers are by definition gamers--those who play video games. There is no need to create new meanings of existing terms simply to be "us versus them."

[QUOTE="webbut"]i dont mind the graphics the lack of games for gamers bothers me. Nintendo refuses to see that there is a difference between people who just play games and people who call themselves gamers.I wouldnt mind if nintendo started making 8bit and 16bit consoles as long as they made games for gamers and not for casual game players mali

I think that it is quite arrogant and elitist to claim that "hardcore" gamers are "gamers," as "hardcore" and "casual" gamers are by definition gamers--those who play video games. There is no need to create new meanings of existing terms simply to be "us versus them."

You both have a good point though. There is a little bit of a lack of games for people who like to take their gaming a bit more seriously than some, and too many mediocre mini-game collections and shovelware.

[QUOTE="wolverine08"]The xbox360 arcade costs $279 and still has HD graphics just no hard drive... like the wii JordanElek

And that was not possible three years ago. If it were, it would've cost $279 at release.

It might be possible now for Nintendo to release a new version of the Wii with updated hardware for $250, but that would be a terrible business decision. People are buying it up at its original price with its original configuration (for the most part). The fact that there hasn't been another model of the Wii is a testament to its success.

My original point was that in 2006, the Wii was the right price considering its hardware. That's changed in the last two years since technology advances so quickly. If the Wii had been released in November of 2008, it would most assuredly have better hardware capable of better graphics, since the technology is cheaper now than it was then.

The xbox360 was released a year before the wii and that included the original CORE model which cost $279

and no its not after a price drop. The core/arcade models always were 279 because they did not include a hard drive. I really doubt the motion control cost that much money to implement.

So... for an extra $30-$50 they could've added HD graphics for Wii? That kinda changes things...

The Wii and the Xbox 360 (with 60GB HD) are both the same price online in the UK - £179.99 (about $330 USA). Admittedly the 360 cost much more when it was first released. Also, I want to know what happened to Nintendo's original statement that the Wii would be a 'small and cheap/inexpensive' console. £179.99 certainly isn't that cheap, compared to the Gamecube being sold for £99 only a couple of years ago. The Wii is almost twice as expensive as the GC was.

So... for an extra $30-$50 they could've added HD graphics for Wii? That kinda changes things...

Chojuto

Not quite. Just because that's the price difference between the two consoles doesn't mean that's the price difference between that particular feature. For example, the Wii comes with buit-in wi-fi capabilities whereas a wireless adaptor for Xbox 360 costs $100. This means that by your logic, Nintendo could have gotten the price down to $150 simply by putting a LAN port on the back instead of wi-fi.

Another thing to point out is that console costs are independent of production costs. When Xbox 360 was released Microsoft was actually losing money for each console sold (like most companies do with video game consoles; they make it up with licensing fees and game sales). Nintendo, however, was making a profit on each Wii console sold when it launched.

who cares about graphics? i have a ps3 and a wii and even tho there aren't that many games out for the wii it's still a great system, HD gaming only goes so far. A wii is made for every person wanting a next gen console and if you have a 360 you should get a wii and if you have a ps3 you should get a wii. Simple as that. I enjoy my wii more than i enjoyed my ps2 and my 360. I sold my ps2 to get my wii and then i sold my 360 so i could get more games for my ps3 and my wii. The wii is definitely one of the best systems i've ever owned and i've only played wii games on it so far (mario kart wii, SSB) i havent even tried gamecube games and the VC games.

Everyone needs to stop caring about graphics and care more about the games. The wii definitely needs more games, whether they be third party or first party. The Wii needs a Luigi's Mansion 2, another Zelda, another Mario or something to keep the nintendo fans happy. The reason i got the nintendo was for those games. If nintendo was smart they'd try getting a deal with square enix for the kingdom hearts series to appear on their console (doesn't matter to me I own a wii and a ps3 and i'm pretty sure its not gonna be a 360 exclusive). My PS3 has its shoes filled these next 2 years with tons of must-have titles coming month by month. My wii on the other hand is still limited to this current lineup which is going to suck whenever i get all the games i want for the wii (gamecube and VC included). I'm pretty sure tho that nintendo has some few tricks up its sleeve and will come out with some sort of blockbuster announcement of some new games coming soon hopefully christmas time, but they need to assure their long time fans that there is more on the horizon.

Graphics are definitely over-rated but games aren't. I enjoy Mario Kart more than any racer on any other system with HD graphics (maybe not till GT5 comes out). I'm just kind of pissed off about the selection of games so far. I mean i don't have all the games i want for the system yet, but things aren't looking good game-wise for nintendo.

Yes, I know. That sucks. I'm starting to hate casual gaming...Thiago26792

Casual gaming is going to expand. Infact, it's hard to say that. But next gen, you'll see all consoles to be more casual. Casual gaming is now the mainstream and the core is now the niche market.

[QUOTE="Thiago26792"]Yes, I know. That sucks. I'm starting to hate casual gaming...chris3116

Casual gaming is going to expand. Infact, it's hard to say that. But next gen, you'll see all consoles to be more casual. Casual gaming is now the mainstream and the core is now the niche market.

This, and we better get used to that. For one, I'm happy more and more people are getting contact with gaming, it's the first step against lunatics like Thompson.

[QUOTE="JordanElek"]

[QUOTE="wolverine08"]The xbox360 arcade costs $279 and still has HD graphics just no hard drive... like the wii wolverine08

And that was not possible three years ago. If it were, it would've cost $279 at release.

It might be possible now for Nintendo to release a new version of the Wii with updated hardware for $250, but that would be a terrible business decision. People are buying it up at its original price with its original configuration (for the most part). The fact that there hasn't been another model of the Wii is a testament to its success.

My original point was that in 2006, the Wii was the right price considering its hardware. That's changed in the last two years since technology advances so quickly. If the Wii had been released in November of 2008, it would most assuredly have better hardware capable of better graphics, since the technology is cheaper now than it was then.

The xbox360 was released a year before the wii and that included the original CORE model which cost $279

and no its not after a price drop. The core/arcade models always were 279 because they did not include a hard drive. I really doubt the motion control cost that much money to implement.

MS were selling consoles at a significant loss at launch though. it would have cost MS more than $279 to manufacture and ship those consoles. ive heard figures that the 360 cost MS about $500 per unit at launch (its alot lower now of course). ninty dont sell consoles at a loss.

unlike the wii, u also need to buy a game for the 360 arcade. otherwise its a paperweight. the wii has wiisports as standard.

[QUOTE="Chojuto"]Well the thing is, if they wanted to make Wii a more powerful system then it'd be a lot more expensive too. The starting price would probably be like $350 instead of $250. Of course, many people probably wouldn't mind the extra money for the better hardware and graphics, but Nintendo makes it that way so it'll be more accessible to people who can't afford to spend that kinda cash.JordanElek

This is the perfect answer.

We all wish that the Wii were capable of better graphics..... but the fact of the matter is that if the Wii had better hardware, it would be much more expensive. If it were more expensive, it would be less popular. Face it, most Wii sales are spur of the moment decisions based on hands-on experience with some friends. "This is really fun!" "Yeah, and it's only $250!" "Wow, I'm gonna get one! ...As soon as I can find one!"

The price is right because people are obviously willing to pay it. If it were $350, it would most likely be out of the price range of too many people. Nintendo made a conscious decision in the design, and you can read all about that here. Price wasn't the only factor; they also believe that simply improving graphics is an "inefficient" path in console design, while improving the interactive side can lead to real progress.

They could have included more powerful hardware, raised the price a bit, and still kept their audience. The fact that the Wii has been consistently sold out for going on two years now means that they under priced it. A price of $280-$300 probably would have kept most of their current audience, and made more Wii's available due to the small portion that wouldn't have paid more. Nintendo's making tons of cash, but they could be making even more if they had properly anticipated the demand, not that I think anyone actually could have...

i dont mind the graphics the lack of games for gamers bothers me. Nintendo refuses to see that there is a difference between people who just play games and people who call themselves gamers.I wouldnt mind if nintendo started making 8bit and 16bit consoles as long as they made games for gamers and not for casual game players webbut

agreed, that is one of my biggest problems with the wii/nintendo. they've found something that is making them a lot of money, which is great, but they're pushing it too far because they've forgotten the "real" gamers. they could do better for us, easily. for instance, I think that the wii is perfect for first person shooters, metroid prime 3's controls were flawless and it wasn't a kiddy game AND it sold. more fps's please.

I think this comic sums up the situation very nicely.chazasul

It doesn't. Miyamoto is one of the most sincere and passionate people in the industry. He even makes more sense than Nintendo spokesmen and women like Reggie or Cammie. This comic is, at best, an insult. Even worse, directed at the wrong person.

[QUOTE="chris3116"]

Casual gaming is going to expand. Infact, it's hard to say that. But next gen, you'll see all consoles to be more casual. Casual gaming is now the mainstream and the core is now the niche market.

Wintry_Flutist

This, and we better get used to that. For one, I'm happy more and more people are getting contact with gaming, it's the first step against lunatics like Thompson.

Not really. Aside from a bizarre and false claim about The Sims (omg exposing children to nekkid people taking showers and going pee!!!), Thompson tends to stick to criticising "hard-core" games pretty exclusively. People like Thompson, the Democratic Party, and organisations like Family Values, as well as rating boards like ESRB and strict countries like Germany, now combined with pressure to expand the market by making "casual" titles could annihilate the "hard-core" niche market.

Not that what we mean by "hard-core" now meant what it did before. Already within the "hard-core" niche, we're seeing the erosion of quality and the dumbing down of gameplay in order to appeal to more people. More devs are taking fewer chances, and the few new ideas that end up in final products spread like bubonic plague through the industry until gamers are just sick to their stomachs at the prospect of yet another QTE!

Not really. Aside from a bizarre and false claim about The Sims (omg exposing children to nekkid people taking showers and going pee!!!), Thompson tends to stick to criticising "hard-core" games pretty exclusively. People like Thompson, the Democratic Party, and organisations like Family Values, as well as rating boards like ESRB and strict countries like Germany, now combined with pressure to expand the market by making "casual" titles could annihilate the "hard-core" niche market.

Not that what we mean by "hard-core" now meant what it did before. Already within the "hard-core" niche, we're seeing the erosion of quality and the dumbing down of gameplay in order to appeal to more people. More devs are taking fewer chances, and the few new ideas that end up in final products spread like bubonic plague through the industry until gamers are just sick to their stomachs at the prospect of yet another QTE!

clicketyclick

I used Thompson as a symbol of misunderstanding gaming. He propably is just some smart ass making his life on other people's misunderstanding, but you get the picture.

I used Thompson as a symbol of misunderstanding gaming. He propably is just some smart ass making his life on other people's misunderstanding, but you get the picture.

Wintry_Flutist

Now that he's facing disbarment, I don't think he'll be making a living on it much longer... but ya, now I understand what you mean. I just don't think that the mass market was hostile to gaming so much as it was ignorant. And for the most part, it continues to remain ignorant of quality, non-minigame titles.

I haven't seen any good business models from any part of the industry (whether devs or console makers or review sites) to draw new consumers deeper into the market. Apple does a fantastic job of taking first-time buyers and turning them into hard-core fanatics who must have every Apple gadget and a bunch of accessories and 3rd party apps for it (and I mean that in the best possible way; I am typing to you from an iBook.)

Right from the beginning, Ninty has had large profit margins on each Wii sold, and as production costs decline as they inevitably do, their margin only increases. They could have upped the tech a bit (not all the way to 1080p) and kept it at the same price, and still have had a profit on it. So why didn't they? ;)clicketyclick

Short answer: Software costs much more to develop for higher-end technology. They didn't up the tech of the Wii because it would place an unnecessary burden (in Nintendo's opinion) on the developer.

Long answer: Read the interview I linked to above, if you haven't already. The developers of the Wii talk specifically about their hardware decisions and reasons behind them. Here's an important excerpt from the general manager of R&D:

This may sound paradoxical, but if we had followed the existing Roadmaps we would have aimed to make it "faster and flashier." In other words, we would have tried to improve the speed at which it displays stunning graphics. But we could not help but ask ourselves, "How big an impact would that direction really have on our customers?" During development, we came to realize the sheer inefficiency of this path when we compared the hardships and costs of development against any new experiences that might be had by our customers.Genyo Takeda

Not only did Nintendo take hardware costs into account, but they also considered software costs. With simpler graphics, developers can be much more efficient with their funding. There are negative consequences to this decision, as we've seen, but the original purpose was meant to be positive. Rather than spending all their time and money on maxing out the technical details in a game, developers can now spend much more time creating a better interactive experience through unique gameplay and fresh ideas. This doesn't always happen, unfortunately, but that's a different discussion.

agreed, that is one of my biggest problems with the wii/nintendo. they've found something that is making them a lot of money, which is great, but they're pushing it too far because they've forgotten the "real" gamers. they could do better for us, easily. for instance, I think that the wii is perfect for first person shooters, metroid prime 3's controls were flawless and it wasn't a kiddy game AND it sold. more fps's please.

td_triksta

I think it is time for people to stop using the "real gamer" nonsense and acknowledge that so-called "casual" gamers are as legitimate as gamers as so-called "hardcore" gamers. I sense an air of elitism and arrogance among some Nintendo fanboys. Gaming is not an exclusive private club.

And one thing: enough with loaded terms like "kiddy" which is often used by some fanboys to act "cool" or "mature." There is nothing intristically wrong with games that appeal to younger demographics or "simple" in design.

Short answer: Software costs much more to develop for higher-end technology. They didn't up the tech of the Wii because it would place an unnecessary burden (in Nintendo's opinion) on the developer.JordanElek

Yes, indeed, and that's an important point considering how much whining devs have been doing about the PS3 (here's looking at you, Gabe Newell!) But it still doesn't address the core of my point, which is this: Ninty could up the tech a BIT, decreasing profit margins, and still make a profit. Of course the same applies to others. The much higher cost of development on 360 and PS3 has to do with their HD and radically different architecture (or at least radically different as far as the PS3 is concerned.) Nintendo was smart not to compete on their graphical level, but it could still offer better graphical capabilities to devs while keeping their production costs down wrt other platforms.

I think it is time for people to stop using the "real gamer" nonsense and acknowledge that so-called "casual" gamers are as legitimate as gamers as so-called "hardcore" gamers. I sense an air of elitism and arrogance among some Nintendo fanboys. Gaming is not an exclusive private club.

And one thing: enough with loaded terms like "kiddy" which is often used by some fanboys to act "cool" or "mature." There is nothing intristically wrong with games that appeal to younger demographics or "simple" in design.

mali

Well, as soon as you stop using the loaded term "fanboy". ;)

I think what this "real gamer" business is getting at is the difference between doing something, and doing it passionately as your hobby or even career. Do you play piano, or are you a piano player? Do you read books, or are you an avid reader? Do you sing with a choir, or are you a singer? Similarly, do you play games, or are you a gamer? I prefer to differentiate players as: "casual players" and "gamers". I find the word "hard-core" to be rather misleading, hence the use of scare-quotes.

Just so you guys know the 360 Arcade is going to be $199 in September.zaku101

Well, the XBox 360 is pretty much a three years old console... ;)