The State of The Wii Address
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Tylendal"]If the Wii does lose (which I doubt) it will be just like last gen, with Nintendo making the least sales, yet managing to get the largest profit.Unforgiven2870Wait they made the largest profit Last Gen? I could've sworn that it was sony's PS2 with its backwards compatibly and great graphics that Sony made the largest profit last gen.
You know there is a thing called Price and Profit.
Just because Sony sold 10 times the amount of consoles that Nintendo did does not mean they gained profit. Why? Because the philosophy behind Sony is that "We sell the console while losing money out of it and then 3 years after when everyone has a PS console, we gain money from the software (games) sales due to the large funbase we created"
That worked with PS2 simply because it had a DVD player and people bought a PS2. But Sony is losing 250 dolllars ( correct me if i am wrong) from every PS3 sold. In order to make a profit they need to seel as much PS3's in 4 years time so that in the end the software sales will give some profit.
PS2 done some AMAZING hardware sales and Sony only started making some profit in the middle of the 3rd year of the PS2's life.
By the sales that the PS3 has now, when do you think Sony will make profit? I leave you with this thought!
Oh and Nintendo always makes profit because they dont sell TVs and DVD's. They just make games!They only have games to make money out of them. They have to make profit! ;) And they always do without milking you with some Blue-Ray crap!
*Post*ps3-nikitaYou couldn't have gotten it more wrong. If anyone was bickering about "How sales wern't important" it was the eleged sheep who started that arguement. But it came to no avail when it was concluded that the PS2 won last generation because of it's ridiculous market share, which many cows and even some lemmings pointed out. You're getting served the same way many had served GC enthusiasts. You also make one of the biggest contradictions in your post. You talk about how Nintendo could've competed with the other two head to head (Mainly in terms of horsepower and specs) and then talk about how much more powerful the N64 was than its competition yet still failed? I don't understand how you can't see a similarity of that situation with this gen? Finally, to add ontop, why the Wii was made that way. It's argueable but Nintendo believed the industry was in danger of losing appeal in general. It's all good talking about profits and such but it could be hurting in the future. IMO it's a great idea to make games more accessable to individuals who'd never consider playing VGs. Thing is, with all this talk of "Casual games" and "Non-gamer games"... Those are no lesser games than the ones we play now or have played in the past. A game is a game and can end up as a good in my eyes once I've played it. I think that sums it up. Sorry, but such a lengthy reply is needed for such a woeful post.
[QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"][QUOTE="Tylendal"]If the Wii does lose (which I doubt) it will be just like last gen, with Nintendo making the least sales, yet managing to get the largest profit.Link_SenseiWait they made the largest profit Last Gen? I could've sworn that it was sony's PS2 with its backwards compatibly and great graphics that Sony made the largest profit last gen.
You know there is a thing called Price and Profit.
Just because Sony sold 10 times the amount of consoles that Nintendo did does not mean they gained profit. Why? Because the philosophy behind Sony is that "We sell the console while losing money out of it and then 3 years after when everyone has a PS console, we gain money from the software (games) sales due to the large funbase we created"
That worked with PS2 simply because it had a DVD player and people bought a PS2. But Sony is losing 250 dolllars ( correct me if i am wrong) from every PS3 sold. In order to make a profit they need to seel as much PS3's in 4 years time so that in the end the software sales will give some profit.
PS2 done some AMAZING hardware sales and Sony only started making some profit in the middle of the 3rd year of the PS2's life.
By the sales that the PS3 has now, when do you think Sony will make profit? I leave you with this thought!
Oh and Nintendo always makes profit because they dont sell TVs and DVD's. They just make games!They only have games to make money out of them. They have to make profit! ;) And they always do without milking you with some Blue-Ray crap!
Thtas what I am talking about. Sheep using the business 101 excuse, to justify a company ripping policy. Do we with any other comercial product care about what else that company makes. Do we care that company x is more value for money because company x makes a,b,c and d. No we dont, its not the customers role to care about these things. They only ever come into account, when trying to gage teh quailty of the company to buy this or any of its other products. Sheep stop acting like shareholders and act like gamers. I dont care if it has become your new mantra for this gen or the collective damage control for your species. Ah to the milk blu-ray aspect. Try milking its Zelda fanbase to the tune of a brand new console. You and I know many Zelda fans wouldnt have bought a Wii at launch and will have just bought Zelda on the GC. If Microsft did that with Halo, the internet would have crashed for a week or so. There would have been rioting on the streets. Sheep just tend to take it with no vaseline, they blame everyone apart from NIntendo.
[QUOTE="Link_Sensei"][QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"][QUOTE="Tylendal"]If the Wii does lose (which I doubt) it will be just like last gen, with Nintendo making the least sales, yet managing to get the largest profit.ps3-nikitaWait they made the largest profit Last Gen? I could've sworn that it was sony's PS2 with its backwards compatibly and great graphics that Sony made the largest profit last gen.
You know there is a thing called Price and Profit.
Just because Sony sold 10 times the amount of consoles that Nintendo did does not mean they gained profit. Why? Because the philosophy behind Sony is that "We sell the console while losing money out of it and then 3 years after when everyone has a PS console, we gain money from the software (games) sales due to the large funbase we created"
That worked with PS2 simply because it had a DVD player and people bought a PS2. But Sony is losing 250 dolllars ( correct me if i am wrong) from every PS3 sold. In order to make a profit they need to seel as much PS3's in 4 years time so that in the end the software sales will give some profit.
PS2 done some AMAZING hardware sales and Sony only started making some profit in the middle of the 3rd year of the PS2's life.
By the sales that the PS3 has now, when do you think Sony will make profit? I leave you with this thought!
Oh and Nintendo always makes profit because they dont sell TVs and DVD's. They just make games!They only have games to make money out of them. They have to make profit! ;) And they always do without milking you with some Blue-Ray crap!
Thtas what I am talking about. Sheep using the business 101 excuse, to justify a company ripping policy. Do we with any other comercial product care about what else that company makes. Do we care that company x is more value for money because company x makes a,b,c and d. No we dont, its not the customers role to care about these things. They only ever come into account, when trying to gage teh quailty of the company to buy this or any of its other products. Sheep stop acting like shareholders and act like gamers. I dont care if it has become your new mantra for this gen or the collective damage control for your species. Ah to the milk blu-ray aspect. Try milking its Zelda fanbase to the tune of a brand new console. You and I know many Zelda fans wouldnt have bought a Wii at launch and will have just bought Zelda on the GC. If Microsft did that with Halo, the internet would have crashed for a week or so. There would have been rioting on the streets. Sheep just tend to take it with no vaseline, they blame everyone apart from NIntendo.
First of all, Nintendo fans are gamers thus we chose to buy a console that may not have hardcore graphix simply because we enjoy the games of Nintendo with great gameplay.
Second, Nintendo fans are not the ones that hyped their console not for the games but for a Blue-Ray player. ( whos the gamer again?)
And Third about the milking.......ah...... MGS 4 , FF13 and many more. They are called sequels. Live with it. Milking is when you force your consumers to buy something. Who forced me to buy Mario Party 7 or SMS or Zelda TP? Nobody. I love those games and may Nintendo make another 100 of them.
But you my good sir may want or not want a Blue-Ray......but you will buy it anyway.....that is if you want to buy a PS3. ;) Get my point?
Thread /
Thank you!
Thank you!
The difference is that a Wii without a Zelda would have sold far less then a PS3 without blu-ray
Thank you!
The difference is that a Wii without a Zelda would have sold far less then a PS3 without blu-ray
And you say that because of the "great" (sarcasm) games that PS3 has out right now and are "dominating" the Software sales ,...right? :lol:
You are so ignorant!
If it wasnt Zelda, it would be Mario or Metroid! PS3 has no games worth talking about right now yet you say PS3 would have sold more!
The difference is that a Wii without a Zelda would have sold far less then a PS3 without blu-rayps3-nikitaI beg to differ. The Wii would always have Zelda in any shape of form. To that extent, I think Wii Sports was the main reason why the Wii is selling well among other factors. But I even think the PS3 would've sold more if Blu-ray was reconsidered as standard to the PS3. The price would come down, demand would go up a little and more supplies would be made. ps3-nikita... Please stop being narrow. There's more to it than you think.
[QUOTE="ps3-nikita"][QUOTE="Link_Sensei"][QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"][QUOTE="Tylendal"]If the Wii does lose (which I doubt) it will be just like last gen, with Nintendo making the least sales, yet managing to get the largest profit.Link_SenseiWait they made the largest profit Last Gen? I could've sworn that it was sony's PS2 with its backwards compatibly and great graphics that Sony made the largest profit last gen.
You know there is a thing called Price and Profit.
Just because Sony sold 10 times the amount of consoles that Nintendo did does not mean they gained profit. Why? Because the philosophy behind Sony is that "We sell the console while losing money out of it and then 3 years after when everyone has a PS console, we gain money from the software (games) sales due to the large funbase we created"
That worked with PS2 simply because it had a DVD player and people bought a PS2. But Sony is losing 250 dolllars ( correct me if i am wrong) from every PS3 sold. In order to make a profit they need to seel as much PS3's in 4 years time so that in the end the software sales will give some profit.
PS2 done some AMAZING hardware sales and Sony only started making some profit in the middle of the 3rd year of the PS2's life.
By the sales that the PS3 has now, when do you think Sony will make profit? I leave you with this thought!
Oh and Nintendo always makes profit because they dont sell TVs and DVD's. They just make games!They only have games to make money out of them. They have to make profit! ;) And they always do without milking you with some Blue-Ray crap!
Thtas what I am talking about. Sheep using the business 101 excuse, to justify a company ripping policy. Do we with any other comercial product care about what else that company makes. Do we care that company x is more value for money because company x makes a,b,c and d. No we dont, its not the customers role to care about these things. They only ever come into account, when trying to gage teh quailty of the company to buy this or any of its other products. Sheep stop acting like shareholders and act like gamers. I dont care if it has become your new mantra for this gen or the collective damage control for your species. Ah to the milk blu-ray aspect. Try milking its Zelda fanbase to the tune of a brand new console. You and I know many Zelda fans wouldnt have bought a Wii at launch and will have just bought Zelda on the GC. If Microsft did that with Halo, the internet would have crashed for a week or so. There would have been rioting on the streets. Sheep just tend to take it with no vaseline, they blame everyone apart from NIntendo.
First of all, Nintendo fans are gamers thus we chose to buy a console that may not have hardcore graphix simply because we enjoy the games of Nintendo with great gameplay.
Second, Nintendo fans are not the ones that hyped their console not for the games but for a Blue-Ray player. ( whos the gamer again?)
And Third about the milking.......ah...... MGS 4 , FF13 and many more. They are called sequels. Live with it. Milking is when you force your consumers to buy something. Who forced me to buy Mario Party 7 or SMS or Zelda TP? Nobody. I love those games and may Nintendo make another 100 of them.
But you my good sir may want or not want a Blue-Ray......but you will buy it anyway.....that is if you want to buy a PS3. ;) Get my point?
Thread /
Let me remind you again and this address one of Teh_Stevz points that I contradicted myself I didnt. I have always said like some other lems and cows, Nintendo has always been about teh grpahics and the tech, in the console space. They have generally come out last out of the main compeittion. Often it is a nice ploy to have their console the most teched out. It also allows them to make any last minute changes. Please dont act like thats not possible. See Sony downgrades for example. I used the 2 names Super NIntendo and N64. Nothing to do with success, but to show sheep and remind them that NnItendo has always been about boasting about power. If you dont think when Snes came out teh name SUPER didnt add a certain extra something special to it your wrong. If you dont think they were trying to talk about how much more powerful it was your worng. The N64 is just as guilty, it is screaming forget Sonys 32bit and forget Segas 32bit., This is the 64bit version of teh NIntendo you know and love. We even have the same game format. Man where they wrong. I never said their names had anything to do with sucess. So there is no contridiction there. Yet sheep want to ignore their own contradiction time after time. One of my favs We dont want old gameplay mechanics we want next gen controls. I cant go back to playing with a GC controller. Oh I am of to VC to dl some games. If you cant see teh contradiction in that, dont ever bother use it in a sentece when quoting me ever again. You do know using MGS4 and F13 to counter my milking point isnt in the same league. There is a difference between milking a franchise on a system. Now milking a franchise to exploit people weakness like a drug dealer to a junkie is on a whole different level. I am not atlking buy a Ps3 and you get FF13, MG4, DMC4 GT5. I have no problems with that whatsoever, that is for another argument and another thread. If they turned round and delayed MGS4 until PS4 and then released it on the PS4 1st and then on the PS3. Then you would get something almost 1/2 of what I am talking about. The problem is Zelda is leagues above MGS when it comes to importance to a console. The only reason why Zelda attach rate to the Wi was so high after launch, is because many people without Wiis bought it. They prob could have played it sooner on the GC, so prob even bought it twice. You know how the junkies need their fix. In closing I am not saying you personally only bought a Wii for Zelda. You just cant deny that many people did. NOw when you do comeback, do it real strong and not with the company line. I like it alot more when any animal comeback when they are using what they say and not based upon influence of any company. Also leave PS3 out of this. 1 I am not a cow and 2 its way too easy and its only recently thay have had good news. I see Home pushing the 360 more then I see the Wii and that what the important things is. It is also I wouldnt really rate teh Wii and have more repect for teh PS3. I will never get one, even as a big movie buff.
Thank you!
The difference is that a Wii without a Zelda would have sold far less then a PS3 without blu-ray
And you say that because of the "great" (sarcasm) games that PS3 has out right now and are "dominating" the Software sales ,...right? :lol:
You are so ignorant!
If it wasnt Zelda, it would be Mario or Metroid! PS3 has no games worth talking about right now yet you say PS3 would have sold more!
You do know I am talking about launch. You are telling me Wii would have sold so many to Zelda fans if they were busy playing Zelda on a GC. You can bring those other games when they are actually out. Your quote only works if I am a cow Your ignorance knows now bounds see the follow points below to see why. 1 PS3 without blu-ray is a $29920gig - $399 60gig 2 Wii would still be priced at $250 to make the profits that sheep need so much. 3 PS2 didnt have much at launch 4 PS2 fanbase is way too big to turn down a $299 console 5 Do you really think a Wii looks cheap next to a $299 PS3. Oh noes its a TRAP. Too late your caught in it. Really comeback when you have a better understanding of the industry. If I wanted to really go there I coudl do with the 360 alone. If you want to test a $299 20gig PS3 minus a blu-ray, with a $250 Wii minus a Zelda. Bring it BOI
[QUOTE="ps3-nikita"]The difference is that a Wii without a Zelda would have sold far less then a PS3 without blu-rayTeh_StevzI beg to differ. The Wii would always have Zelda in any shape of form. To that extent, I think Wii Sports was the main reason why the Wii is selling well among other factors. But I even think the PS3 would've sold more if Blu-ray was reconsidered as standard to the PS3. The price would come down, demand would go up a little and more supplies would be made. ps3-nikita... Please stop being narrow. There's more to it than you think. I am talking launch. The PS3 wouldnt need much more then what they have now and what they are getting this month. Even if you only count teh quailty 360 ports. People who havent made up their minds or peopel who didnt want to pay $499-$599. If you can see this then its you who is narrow minded. Again this would work if I was a cow. I am not I am actually bring praise to a system if it was minus a blu-ray. A system I have bashed from day 1. Please tell me how a $250 Zeldaless Wii beats a $299 20gig (any 2.5 hdd upgradable) PS3 with Ee still intact. I would say the 360 ports alone would make me buy a PS3 at that price over a Wii. Bottom line a Blu-rayless PS3 at $299 kills everything on the market as value for money on a system. 360 Kills it for games, This year I can see them on a more even footing. Just rememember teh fanbase is enough to make a switch to a new PS3 at that price just to play old games and a few ones at launch. Wii doesnt have that much to crow about when it comes to games. I personally wouldnt buy a new gen console to play last gen games. Also think of this, the price point would have slowed down 360 sells. I still think PS3 wouldnt have launched until today, but it would have been a Worldwide launch. The games were ready until now.
Thank you!
The difference is that a Wii without a Zelda would have sold far less then a PS3 without blu-ray
And you say that because of the "great" (sarcasm) games that PS3 has out right now and are "dominating" the Software sales ,...right? :lol:
You are so ignorant!
If it wasnt Zelda, it would be Mario or Metroid! PS3 has no games worth talking about right now yet you say PS3 would have sold more!
You do know I am talking about launch. You are telling me Wii would have sold so many to Zelda fans if they were busy playing Zelda on a GC. You can bring those other games when they are actually out. Your quote only works if I am a cow Your ignorance knows now bounds see the follow points below to see why. 1 PS3 without blu-ray is a $29920gig - $399 60gig 2 Wii would still be priced at $250 to make the profits that sheep need so much. 3 PS2 didnt have much at launch 4 PS2 fanbase is way too big to turn down a $299 console 5 Do you really think a Wii looks cheap next to a $299 PS3. Oh noes its a TRAP. Too late your caught in it. Really comeback when you have a better understanding of the industry. If I wanted to really go there I coudl do with the 360 alone. If you want to test a $299 20gig PS3 minus a blu-ray, with a $250 Wii minus a Zelda. Bring it BOI
Ok let me counter your arguments:
1. A PS3 without a Blue-Ray would be a PS2 x 2 and if we take under consideration that GC was far more powerfull than the PS2 then there you have it. PS2 would have worst graphix than Wii. So by your logic it would fail to sell because it has less powerfull graphix. And believe me :lol: Sony wouldnt sell a console lower than $400. Thats a fact.
2. Wii would still be $250 because of the Wiimote and the new experience it provides. Also take under consideration the small size of the hardware and the WiiConnect24 and the VirtualConsole and with WiiSports. A console that would be half the size of PS3, more powerfull than a PS3 without Blue-Ray, with the Wiimote and with the Virtual Console is not bad for $250 right? Lets move on anyway.
3. You dare to compare PS2 with PS3? PS2 sold at first because of the DVD player. DVD was a huge deal back then and many considered it a chance to get one. But now DVD's are nothing spectacular. Everyone has at least 1. Blue-Ray is not as desireable as DVD back then. Blue-Ray made no difference this gen. Look at the numbers again. Sony needs to focus on games. People want a console not a multymedia focused machine. They already have those!
4. PS2 fanbase is in fact very big but i doubt if Sony would sell its console for $299. $400 at least because they think that whatever has the name PS and Sony on it, it would sell no matter what. Thats called arrogance my friend.
5.Again there you are speculating that PS3 without a Blu-Ray would be $299. It would never happen so dream on.
Oh my God its teh trap!! Please dont be so rude when you talk with someone and by the way you failed.
All the above are just personal predictions and speculations so i answered you with the same personal predictions and speculations.
Please just look at reallity and leave those thoughts behind. Instead of thinking what Sony could have done you should think of what Sny should do NOW that the damage has been done. you act just like Sony.
In any case i will withdraw from this conversation because you clearly can accept the fact that Wii is selling better than PS3. Addmiting your mistakes is the first step to correcting them but the Sony fans and Sony itself are not doing that so.....what can anyone say. Keep up your "good job" ;)
THE TRUTH.= HD BLING BLING = THE REAL GIMIK
About 'What You're Proposing', yeah it settles for the Status Quo but it still gives you 'Whatever You Want' and it will soon be 'Rockin' All Over the World'. What can I say, the Wii 'Can't Give You More'. I know you're having a 'Hard Time' with it but buying the Wii wont 'Hold You Back', so maybe you should just 'Roll Over Lay Down'. Many people also criticise the Wii for largely relying on 1st party titles, but its just 'Jealousy'.
I prefer the Wii to the 360 and PS3 because its just 'The Way I Am'. Don't believe those fanboy 'Lies', they drive me 'Over the Edge'. I certainly 'Ain't Complainin'. Just 'Don't Waste My Time' because this argument is 'Goin Nowhere'. and thats 'The Way It Goes'.
What the post does show, is that the whole Wii is a gamble or a risky move on NIntendo part, is false. This is something I have always said and quite often shows the stupidty of the gaming media. I often think how they got their jobs, letting themselves be taken for a ride. I guess some people will always let 1 company get away with more while other companies get more crap for anything. This gen like last gen. NIntendo seems to be having a easy ride of it. The argument NIntendo couldnt have competited wth Sony or Microsoft had they had gone head to head. This statement only proves 1 thing. NIntendo doesnt have the games, if it had and was condifendt in them. They could stand toe to toe. If they were activetly seeking abigger portfilo and correcting mistakes of last gen. Making sure games either came out 1st, same time or just not exclusives to other platforms, like Microsoft have been doing. Nintedo just took the easy route and often lazy route. This makes me laugh as sheep often comlpain about 3rd party devs, when all they are doing is folllowing NIntendos business model. If NIntendo had gone head to head, maybe they would have been forced to sort out the online model as well. This would have benifitted gamers more then what they have now. Bottom line, NIntendo knows it will get the sheep and teh ds owners with teh Wii. So all they really need to do is get the non-gamer $. The non-gaming $ is bigger then the casual gaming $. The good thing about the non-gaming market is that it doesnt require a good software attach rate. Which is why I hate profit on day 1 model. You can bet that there will be more lems here with more games in their 1st year then cows or sheep with their 1st year games. EDI and VC games dont count. When companies go head to head, it usually the customer who gets the most. Here Nintendo is avoiding this and its more about the company gaining from day 1 and you might get alittle something out of it. Its a little hard to appricate a model like this, esp when the 360 has been so good to us as a customer. Mhy stndards havent been lowered or kept the same as last gen to enjoys the games I do. I do believe that so very good kooliad has done this to sheep. I mean from Nes to Gc, each new gen became about the graphical and tec improvement. Even the names of the consoles, Super NIntendo and N64, both scream look at me I am so much more powerful. Also bringing a 64bit to a 32bit race, says volumes. Yes your main compeition were Sega and Sony, both 32bits. NIntendo came out last with a so-called 64bit. What Nintendo has doen to the sheep is pretty sad. They have turn alot of you into animals that care more about numbers then games. Getting you more concered about about profits, which I have hardly seen go back into the benifiting tteh gamer. Got you acting more like shareholders then customers. This is a dream of any company to get its customer to do this and you fell for the brainwashing hook line and sinker If you wanna comeback, please use MIcrosoft in the console space and not the pc space and dont bring PS3. I do love when PS3 is used as a comeback to deflict from the issues with teh Wii.. Please no 5M Wii owners say otherwise. Titanic made Billions and that film is still crap. Ghostrider is nearing the 100M mark and that is one fo the worst comic book movies ever. Man, even the 1st Turtle movie gets more love from me. Teh 2nd hell NO. ps3-nikita
Actually, not having any games is just your fanboyish opinion. Many people prefer the games out for the Wii to those out on other systems. Overall, its personal preferance that matters, but this typically never gets through to fanboys.
I made 2 lists for myself. One was a list of 360 games I wanted and the other Wii games. Even though the 360 had been out for over a year there were still more games current and future out of both consoles libraries that I wanted for the Wii. Even with games like Mass Effect and Banjo-Kazooie 3 on the horizon the Wii just seemed more attractive to me personally.
[QUOTE="poopinloop32"]Did Nintendo pay you to make this?bloodychimp
poopinloop32 bashing the Wii for no reason other than its winning? Where have I seen this before?
yup i cry everytime the Wii sells...it hurts so much..so funny how most of the people that hate me ive been here longer
I hate almost everything about the Wii. Rather than take a step forward in its graphics, sound, and AI capabilities, the Wii settles for the status quo. Instead of going nose-to-nose with its bullies, it decides to duck down the alley and outwit, rather than out-muscle, its opponents. I firmly believe that Nintendo could have accomplished everything it wanted by adding just a pinch more pixie dust into the Wii hardware--in such a case, the ever-so-innovative Wii remote would not be the defining characteristic of the system so much as it would be just another way that it is superior to its competing platforms.CubeJL
Almost everybody here on the Gamespot forums cares deeply about great graphics, so it's not surprising that you have an opinion such as this. But Nintendo tried this tactic before - they tried to go toe to toe in the graphics department while having the cheaper console and they fell flat on their faces. Granted they did not have an innovative controller with the Gamecube, but their failure to capture meaningful market share was enough to make them change their tactics.
With the Wii, Nintendo chose the innovative and affordable route, and their intention was to also make money off the product. If they had put in beefier hardware the console would have been more expensive, closer to the Xbox 360 in price. The R&R costs would also have been a lot higher, adding to the initial price of the console. They wanted to truly price the Wii completely away from Sony & Microsoft and separate themselves, and they also wanted to make it profitable. They have succeeded. The people are buying the Wii not because it has great graphics, but because it is extremely fun and neat to play.
That's my take on it. But if great graphics are important to you, you can always get one of the other consoles.
[QUOTE="ps3-nikita"]What the post does show, is that the whole Wii is a gamble or a risky move on NIntendo part, is false. This is something I have always said and quite often shows the stupidty of the gaming media. I often think how they got their jobs, letting themselves be taken for a ride. I guess some people will always let 1 company get away with more while other companies get more crap for anything. This gen like last gen. NIntendo seems to be having a easy ride of it. The argument NIntendo couldnt have competited wth Sony or Microsoft had they had gone head to head. This statement only proves 1 thing. NIntendo doesnt have the games, if it had and was condifendt in them. They could stand toe to toe. If they were activetly seeking abigger portfilo and correcting mistakes of last gen. Making sure games either came out 1st, same time or just not exclusives to other platforms, like Microsoft have been doing. Nintedo just took the easy route and often lazy route. This makes me laugh as sheep often comlpain about 3rd party devs, when all they are doing is folllowing NIntendos business model. If NIntendo had gone head to head, maybe they would have been forced to sort out the online model as well. This would have benifitted gamers more then what they have now. Bottom line, NIntendo knows it will get the sheep and teh ds owners with teh Wii. So all they really need to do is get the non-gamer $. The non-gaming $ is bigger then the casual gaming $. The good thing about the non-gaming market is that it doesnt require a good software attach rate. Which is why I hate profit on day 1 model. You can bet that there will be more lems here with more games in their 1st year then cows or sheep with their 1st year games. EDI and VC games dont count. When companies go head to head, it usually the customer who gets the most. Here Nintendo is avoiding this and its more about the company gaining from day 1 and you might get alittle something out of it. Its a little hard to appricate a model like this, esp when the 360 has been so good to us as a customer. Mhy stndards havent been lowered or kept the same as last gen to enjoys the games I do. I do believe that so very good kooliad has done this to sheep. I mean from Nes to Gc, each new gen became about the graphical and tec improvement. Even the names of the consoles, Super NIntendo and N64, both scream look at me I am so much more powerful. Also bringing a 64bit to a 32bit race, says volumes. Yes your main compeition were Sega and Sony, both 32bits. NIntendo came out last with a so-called 64bit. What Nintendo has doen to the sheep is pretty sad. They have turn alot of you into animals that care more about numbers then games. Getting you more concered about about profits, which I have hardly seen go back into the benifiting tteh gamer. Got you acting more like shareholders then customers. This is a dream of any company to get its customer to do this and you fell for the brainwashing hook line and sinker If you wanna comeback, please use MIcrosoft in the console space and not the pc space and dont bring PS3. I do love when PS3 is used as a comeback to deflict from the issues with teh Wii.. Please no 5M Wii owners say otherwise. Titanic made Billions and that film is still crap. Ghostrider is nearing the 100M mark and that is one fo the worst comic book movies ever. Man, even the 1st Turtle movie gets more love from me. Teh 2nd hell NO. Quofan
Actually, not having any games is just your fanboyish opinion. Many people prefer the games out for the Wii to those out on other systems. Overall, its personal preferance that matters, but this typically never gets through to fanboys.
I made 2 lists for myself. One was a list of 360 games I wanted and the other Wii games. Even though the 360 had been out for over a year there were still more games current and future out of both consoles libraries that I wanted for the Wii. Even with games like Mass Effect and Banjo-Kazooie 3 on the horizon the Wii just seemed more attractive to me personally.
I sure would be hard pressed to make a list of Wii games which can even hold a candle to the number of 360 games I want to play.
Did your Wii list look something like this-- SSBB, SMBG, MP3C, ZTP
My 360 list would look like this: Bioshock, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Halo 3, PD0, Banjo Threeie, Kameo, Project Gotham Racing 3, Forza 2, Alan Wake, Gears of War, Unreal Tournament 3, Mass Effect, Fable 2, GRAW, GRAW 2, R6: Vegas, Oblivion, etc etc etc
I'd be interested to see your list.
[QUOTE="CubeJL"]I hate almost everything about the Wii. Rather than take a step forward in its graphics, sound, and AI capabilities, the Wii settles for the status quo. Instead of going nose-to-nose with its bullies, it decides to duck down the alley and outwit, rather than out-muscle, its opponents. I firmly believe that Nintendo could have accomplished everything it wanted by adding just a pinch more pixie dust into the Wii hardware--in such a case, the ever-so-innovative Wii remote would not be the defining characteristic of the system so much as it would be just another way that it is superior to its competing platforms.thinicer
Almost everybody here on the Gamespot forums cares deeply about great graphics, so it's not surprising that you have an opinion such as this. But Nintendo tried this tactic before - they tried to go toe to toe in the graphics department while having the cheaper console and they fell flat on their faces. Granted they did not have an innovative controller with the Gamecube, but their failure to capture meaningful market share was enough to make them change their tactics.
With the Wii, Nintendo chose the innovative and affordable route, and their intention was to also make money off the product. If they had put in beefier hardware the console would have been more expensive, closer to the Xbox 360 in price. The R&R costs would also have been a lot higher, adding to the initial price of the console. They wanted to truly price the Wii completely away from Sony & Microsoft and separate themselves, and they also wanted to make it profitable. They have succeeded. The people are buying the Wii not because it has great graphics, but because it is extremely fun and neat to play.
That's my take on it. But if great graphics are important to you, you can always get one of the other consoles.
Graphics are important to me, which is why I have a 360.
I actually agree with many of your points, and you can take a look at my paragraph which ends, "...because they have probably never played a gamecube" to illustrate this.
My personal opinions (and those of other hardcores) of the Wii asside, it is selling like hot cakes and accomplishing its mission. I guess this is at the core of my post.
[QUOTE="Tylendal"]If the Wii does lose (which I doubt) it will be just like last gen, with Nintendo making the least sales, yet managing to get the largest profit.Unforgiven2870Wait they made the largest profit Last Gen? I could've sworn that it was sony's PS2 with its backwards compatibly and great graphics that Sony made the largest profit last gen. Nope, Nintendo made almost twice as much money off the GC as Sony did off the PS2.
[QUOTE="Link_Sensei"][QUOTE="ps3-nikita"][QUOTE="Link_Sensei"][QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"][QUOTE="Tylendal"]If the Wii does lose (which I doubt) it will be just like last gen, with Nintendo making the least sales, yet managing to get the largest profit.ps3-nikitaWait they made the largest profit Last Gen? I could've sworn that it was sony's PS2 with its backwards compatibly and great graphics that Sony made the largest profit last gen.
You know there is a thing called Price and Profit.
Just because Sony sold 10 times the amount of consoles that Nintendo did does not mean they gained profit. Why? Because the philosophy behind Sony is that "We sell the console while losing money out of it and then 3 years after when everyone has a PS console, we gain money from the software (games) sales due to the large funbase we created"
That worked with PS2 simply because it had a DVD player and people bought a PS2. But Sony is losing 250 dolllars ( correct me if i am wrong) from every PS3 sold. In order to make a profit they need to seel as much PS3's in 4 years time so that in the end the software sales will give some profit.
PS2 done some AMAZING hardware sales and Sony only started making some profit in the middle of the 3rd year of the PS2's life.
By the sales that the PS3 has now, when do you think Sony will make profit? I leave you with this thought!
Oh and Nintendo always makes profit because they dont sell TVs and DVD's. They just make games!They only have games to make money out of them. They have to make profit! ;) And they always do without milking you with some Blue-Ray crap!
Thtas what I am talking about. Sheep using the business 101 excuse, to justify a company ripping policy. Do we with any other comercial product care about what else that company makes. Do we care that company x is more value for money because company x makes a,b,c and d. No we dont, its not the customers role to care about these things. They only ever come into account, when trying to gage teh quailty of the company to buy this or any of its other products. Sheep stop acting like shareholders and act like gamers. I dont care if it has become your new mantra for this gen or the collective damage control for your species. Ah to the milk blu-ray aspect. Try milking its Zelda fanbase to the tune of a brand new console. You and I know many Zelda fans wouldnt have bought a Wii at launch and will have just bought Zelda on the GC. If Microsft did that with Halo, the internet would have crashed for a week or so. There would have been rioting on the streets. Sheep just tend to take it with no vaseline, they blame everyone apart from NIntendo.
First of all, Nintendo fans are gamers thus we chose to buy a console that may not have hardcore graphix simply because we enjoy the games of Nintendo with great gameplay.
Second, Nintendo fans are not the ones that hyped their console not for the games but for a Blue-Ray player. ( whos the gamer again?)
And Third about the milking.......ah...... MGS 4 , FF13 and many more. They are called sequels. Live with it. Milking is when you force your consumers to buy something. Who forced me to buy Mario Party 7 or SMS or Zelda TP? Nobody. I love those games and may Nintendo make another 100 of them.
But you my good sir may want or not want a Blue-Ray......but you will buy it anyway.....that is if you want to buy a PS3. ;) Get my point?
Thread /
Let me remind you again and this address one of Teh_Stevz points that I contradicted myself I didnt. I have always said like some other lems and cows, Nintendo has always been about teh grpahics and the tech, in the console space. They have generally come out last out of the main compeittion. Often it is a nice ploy to have their console the most teched out. It also allows them to make any last minute changes. Please dont act like thats not possible. See Sony downgrades for example. I used the 2 names Super NIntendo and N64. Nothing to do with success, but to show sheep and remind them that NnItendo has always been about boasting about power. If you dont think when Snes came out teh name SUPER didnt add a certain extra something special to it your wrong. If you dont think they were trying to talk about how much more powerful it was your worng. The N64 is just as guilty, it is screaming forget Sonys 32bit and forget Segas 32bit., This is the 64bit version of teh NIntendo you know and love. We even have the same game format. Man where they wrong. I never said their names had anything to do with sucess. So there is no contridiction there. Yet sheep want to ignore their own contradiction time after time. One of my favs We dont want old gameplay mechanics we want next gen controls. I cant go back to playing with a GC controller. Oh I am of to VC to dl some games. If you cant see teh contradiction in that, dont ever bother use it in a sentece when quoting me ever again. You do know using MGS4 and F13 to counter my milking point isnt in the same league. There is a difference between milking a franchise on a system. Now milking a franchise to exploit people weakness like a drug dealer to a junkie is on a whole different level. I am not atlking buy a Ps3 and you get FF13, MG4, DMC4 GT5. I have no problems with that whatsoever, that is for another argument and another thread. If they turned round and delayed MGS4 until PS4 and then released it on the PS4 1st and then on the PS3. Then you would get something almost 1/2 of what I am talking about. The problem is Zelda is leagues above MGS when it comes to importance to a console. The only reason why Zelda attach rate to the Wi was so high after launch, is because many people without Wiis bought it. They prob could have played it sooner on the GC, so prob even bought it twice. You know how the junkies need their fix. In closing I am not saying you personally only bought a Wii for Zelda. You just cant deny that many people did. NOw when you do comeback, do it real strong and not with the company line. I like it alot more when any animal comeback when they are using what they say and not based upon influence of any company. Also leave PS3 out of this. 1 I am not a cow and 2 its way too easy and its only recently thay have had good news. I see Home pushing the 360 more then I see the Wii and that what the important things is. It is also I wouldnt really rate teh Wii and have more repect for teh PS3. I will never get one, even as a big movie buff.
In this case, I have to agree with Nikita...
ZTP was as much a milking scheme as I have ever seen. This game was designed from the ground up for the Gamecube, and in the end, it really rang true once the reviews popped up--the controls weren't all that innovative, and the game was merely flipped across the Z axis as literally a "mirror image" of its Gamecube equivalent.
Crap sells, folks. Crap sells.
[QUOTE="Unforgiven2870"][QUOTE="Tylendal"]If the Wii does lose (which I doubt) it will be just like last gen, with Nintendo making the least sales, yet managing to get the largest profit.ithilgore2006Wait they made the largest profit Last Gen? I could've sworn that it was sony's PS2 with its backwards compatibly and great graphics that Sony made the largest profit last gen. Nope, Nintendo made almost twice as much money off the GC as Sony did off the PS2.
If we're talking JUST hardware, then yes, Nintendo appears to have made more raw profit than Sony (hard to calculate because Sony's economies of scale on the PS2 have dramatically risen AND the system is still selling). Of course, when you look at software, it's not even worth comparing the two.
I sure would be hard pressed to make a list of Wii games which can even hold a candle to the number of 360 games I want to play.Did your Wii list look something like this-- SSBB, SMBG, MP3C, ZTP
My 360 list would look like this: Bioshock, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Halo 3, PD0, Banjo Threeie, Kameo, Project Gotham Racing 3, Forza 2, Alan Wake, Gears of War, Unreal Tournament 3, Mass Effect, Fable 2, GRAW, GRAW 2, R6: Vegas, Oblivion, etc etc etc
I'd be interested to see your list.CubeJL
Like he said it's up to personal preference. I also have more interest in the games coming out for the Wii than I do for the 360, and your own preferences have no impact on that. Take out all the shooters and racing games from the list (for a person like me who has little interest in them for example) and much of that list is torn out. Then consider that for most of the rest I personally have no interest in Oblivion, or Kameo, or the general look of games I see coming out for the 360. It is all about personal preferences.
[QUOTE="CubeJL"]I sure would be hard pressed to make a list of Wii games which can even hold a candle to the number of 360 games I want to play.Did your Wii list look something like this-- SSBB, SMBG, MP3C, ZTP
My 360 list would look like this: Bioshock, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, Halo 3, PD0, Banjo Threeie, Kameo, Project Gotham Racing 3, Forza 2, Alan Wake, Gears of War, Unreal Tournament 3, Mass Effect, Fable 2, GRAW, GRAW 2, R6: Vegas, Oblivion, etc etc etc
I'd be interested to see your list.Ultimate_Peon
Like he said it's up to personal preference. I also have more interest in the games coming out for the Wii than I do for the 360, and your own preferences have no impact on that. Take out all the shooters and racing games from the list (for a person like me who has little interest in them for example) and much of that list is torn out. Then consider that for most of the rest I personally have no interest in Oblivion, or Kameo, or the general look of games I see coming out for the 360. It is all about personal preferences.
OK, arguing behind the guise of "personal preference" will, I agree, not yield much fruit.
I simply asked to see his list...if you take out shooters, racing, and the like as you suggest, you're still left with action/adventure and RPG. Surely, one of these genres appeals to even you?
Be careful, because pretty soon you'll be out of genres to chose from.
OK, arguing behind the guise of "personal preference" will, I agree, not yield much fruit.
I simply asked to see his list...if you take out shooters, racing, and the like as you suggest, you're still left with action/adventure and RPG. Surely, one of these genres appeals to even you?
Be careful, because pretty soon you'll be out of genres to chose from.CubeJL
Like I said, of those left I don't like the look of them. Oblivion or Kameo fall into genres that I am more interested in, but they do not appeal to me and the general look that 360 games seem to have does not grab my interest. I don't see how personal preference is so alien to your understanding that what you can't see that what you like I might not. It's almost like asking why everyone doesn't share the same favourite colour as you do.
[QUOTE="CubeJL"]OK, arguing behind the guise of "personal preference" will, I agree, not yield much fruit.
I simply asked to see his list...if you take out shooters, racing, and the like as you suggest, you're still left with action/adventure and RPG. Surely, one of these genres appeals to even you?
Be careful, because pretty soon you'll be out of genres to chose from.Ultimate_Peon
Like I said, of those left I don't like the look of them. Oblivion or Kameo fall into genres that I am more interested in, but they do not appeal to me and the general look that 360 games seem to have does not grab my interest. I don't see how personal preference is so alien to your understanding that what you can't see that what you like I might not. It's almost like asking why everyone doesn't share the same favourite colour as you do.
Well, personal preferences are certainly very real. However, it can also be one heck of a scape goat, as I feel it is for you at the moment.
You appear to be getting a little uncomfortable over there. Have I struck a nerve?
How is it a scapegoat? Struck a nerve? Oi.Well, personal preferences are certainly very real. However, it can also be one heck of a scape goat, as I feel it is for you at the moment.
You appear to be getting a little uncomfortable over there. Have I struck a nerve?
CubeJL
[QUOTE="ps3-nikita"]Let me remind you again and this address one of Teh_Stevz points that I contradicted myself I didnt. I have always said like some other lems and cows, Nintendo has always been about teh grpahics and the tech, in the console space. They have generally come out last out of the main compeittion. Often it is a nice ploy to have their console the most teched out. It also allows them to make any last minute changes. Please dont act like thats not possible. See Sony downgrades for example. I used the 2 names Super NIntendo and N64. Nothing to do with success, but to show sheep and remind them that NnItendo has always been about boasting about power. If you dont think when Snes came out teh name SUPER didnt add a certain extra something special to it your wrong. If you dont think they were trying to talk about how much more powerful it was your worng. The N64 is just as guilty, it is screaming forget Sonys 32bit and forget Segas 32bit., This is the 64bit version of teh NIntendo you know and love. We even have the same game format. Man where they wrong. I never said their names had anything to do with sucess. So there is no contridiction there. Yet sheep want to ignore their own contradiction time after time. One of my favs We dont want old gameplay mechanics we want next gen controls. I cant go back to playing with a GC controller. Oh I am of to VC to dl some games. If you cant see teh contradiction in that, dont ever bother use it in a sentece when quoting me ever again. You do know using MGS4 and F13 to counter my milking point isnt in the same league. There is a difference between milking a franchise on a system. Now milking a franchise to exploit people weakness like a drug dealer to a junkie is on a whole different level. I am not atlking buy a Ps3 and you get FF13, MG4, DMC4 GT5. I have no problems with that whatsoever, that is for another argument and another thread. If they turned round and delayed MGS4 until PS4 and then released it on the PS4 1st and then on the PS3. Then you would get something almost 1/2 of what I am talking about. The problem is Zelda is leagues above MGS when it comes to importance to a console. The only reason why Zelda attach rate to the Wi was so high after launch, is because many people without Wiis bought it. They prob could have played it sooner on the GC, so prob even bought it twice. You know how the junkies need their fix. In closing I am not saying you personally only bought a Wii for Zelda. You just cant deny that many people did. NOw when you do comeback, do it real strong and not with the company line. I like it alot more when any animal comeback when they are using what they say and not based upon influence of any company. Also leave PS3 out of this. 1 I am not a cow and 2 its way too easy and its only recently thay have had good news. I see Home pushing the 360 more then I see the Wii and that what the important things is. It is also I wouldnt really rate teh Wii and have more repect for teh PS3. I will never get one, even as a big movie buff.Teh_StevzI wonder if you know what I mean by the "contradiction" you had. We all know the N64 was more powerful than its counterparts. We also know that it seemedly failed. We also know Nintendo were about power... Back then. The same thing happened almost alike when the GC was introduced. You would've thought Nintendo would've learnt a lesson now. I ask what's wrong with them trying to approach something differently? Not only that but, if current buying trends continue, isn't the PS3 and 360 in the same scenario as the N64? That's where the contradiction(s) lay. About Zelda. The delay helped the game rather than if there were no delay it help the GC. TP could do no more for the GC besides exist. With a new console appearing Nintendo wanted to put their Wiimote to the test to see if there was any significance... Apparently it warrented it's own version. Sure, there were many who thought of this as milking where it only boost sales, but there is even more to the Wii that made it sell and sellout to this point that TP couldn't do alone. Wii Sports is such an example. Also, I'm confused in how PSH is pushing. Ethic of machine or competition off the edge?
I pretty much agree with the timbre of your post, here. Although, I have to say that the N64 was a very strange beast, indeed. While it offered some nice touches like additional poly-counts, anti-aliasing, and the like, it also was horribly hampered by a lack of storage and decidedly more expensive to develop for. For these reasons, one cannot say that the N64 offered more "power" per-se--it's really a wash when you look at it.
I think Nintendo's reluctance to adopt modern game media (beginning with the CD format) is what began their unraveling with respect to hardware dominance. Had Nintendo gone CD with the 64, developers like Square might have never hopped boats to begin with, and we'd be looking at a very different industry today.
[QUOTE="CubeJL"]How is it a scapegoat? Struck a nerve? Oi.Well, personal preferences are certainly very real. However, it can also be one heck of a scape goat, as I feel it is for you at the moment.
You appear to be getting a little uncomfortable over there. Have I struck a nerve?
Ultimate_Peon
A scapegoat in the sense that:
Anyone, when threatened with potentially losing an arugment or being exposed for faulty logic, can always use "personal preferences" as a fail-safe.
Nintendo isn't nearly as rich as Sony or Micosoft...Nintendo can't afford to lose $100-200 on every console sold. I do think Nintendo could've afforded a more powerful console than Wii though...AvIdGaMeR444
Really? I think they could've certainly afforded a more powerful console. Nintendo, being the business that they are, smelt blood in the water after the success of the DS and decided to scoop up those outliers who don't really play games. Pure and simple.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment