They will never cut the price. When the price should go lower, they just discount the current one and bring a new one with the same price :DSupafly1

It's really stupid move, if true. Microsoft is in a muc better position. They can drop the core down to $250 in no time. If they drop the premium down to at least $325,I'm getting that instead. I could care less about blu-ray at the moment. This is really dissapointing. I really wanted to purchase one to. I guessI'll wait till the end of next year and see what hapens.

[QUOTE="dcoope3"]

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"][QUOTE="Jin_the_samurai"]Since the Wii is nearest hardware wise to the PS2 it shares ports just like 360, PS3 and PC share ports because they are nearest to each other hardware wise. When they stop producing games for the PS2 is when we will stop seeing PS2 ports and more games like SMG.metroidfood

I agree. Nintendo is not even aksing devs to push for graphics, so why should they. Also, since the Architecture is based off of Gamecube (even if it is 2-3x more powerful), why go the extra mile if they mastered PS2-GC ports. It all comes down to money and time. Even if devs try to eak out some better graphics on the Wii, will it be worth the investment?

Why go the extra mile to make PS3 games when PS2 is selling better and it's cheaper to make games for it?

Are you being sarcastic? You have a point, however next-gen games cost more to make, and since it's easy to make ports from PS2-Wii and genrate a profit, why make an extra effort. They will use the profits from the ports to fun the more expensive ps3/xbox360/pc games

[QUOTE="Jin_the_samurai"]Since the Wii is nearest hardware wise to the PS2 it shares ports just like 360, PS3 and PC share ports because they are nearest to each other hardware wise. When they stop producing games for the PS2 is when we will stop seeing PS2 ports and more games like SMG.Darthmatt

I agree. Nintendo is not even aksing devs to push for graphics, so why should they. Also, since the Architecture is based off of Gamecube (even if it is 2-3x more powerful), why go the extra mile if they mastered PS2-GC ports. It all comes down to money and time. Even if devs try to eak out some better graphics on the Wii, will it be worth the investment?

[QUOTE="metroidfood"]

Because devs are too lazy to create original games?

CB4McGusto

WRONG, cause Nintendo was to lazy to create a powerful next gen console therefore leaving the devs unable to create new and original games.

You can still create original games with that level of hardware. However, very few comapnies outside of Factor 5 (Gamecube Star Wars games)know how to truly utilize the hardware. Factor 5made miracles happen on the GC, which a lot of people forget. It would be great if they shared there techniques with the rest of the devs. However, the are off making Lair for PS3, and probably won't be making games on a Nintendo console anytme soon.

As far as the topic, as long as PS2 exist, you will continue to see ports. I just don't see PS2 dying anytime soon considering the price of PS3 and how many PS2 that are out there (about 90-100 million). PS2 was the lowest common denominator. It held back both theGC from showing their true potential because of ports. It will hold back the Wii as well. It won't be any different

Well, once you have kids.. say goodbye to ALL your free time. Atleast you can watch your kids play!

7thSIN

I'm 29 with a career that keeps me REALLY busy and I'm married. I think I may end up selling my Wii cause I never seem to get to play any of my games. I already sold my PS2 and XBOX earlier this year. I was planning on keeping my Wii, but it seems like I am wasting the money by not getting to play it much. Anyone else have this problem? Guess I am getting old. :PJDW_games

I feel your pain. I'm married and have a newborn. There is hardly time It hard to find time to play anything. I usually get some time if I catch my wife and kid sleeping. I have to usually sneak a PC game to work and play it there on my free time (Thank God for Nvidia Quadro (Direct X 9.0C sm2.0). I'm a sys admin by the way.

[QUOTE="Vorknykx"]

I hope I get some measure of revenge.

Here's a question for the graphical loving people. What would you really prefer. Spending £40-50 on a game that lasts only 10 hours but is photo realistic or would you want a game that allows you to play for 40 hours and has graphics that are similar to...Ocarina of Time or Sonic 1/2 on the Mega Drive (only games I could think of).

schesak

Given the level of technology available, it is perfectly acceptable to want BOTH in the same game.

I see this argument all the time from people that want to push the "graphics aren't that important" belief. It's hogwash, there is no reason a game can't have both. Only the game publishers have a reason to try to push one or the other...to make more money without spending as much. They don't get my $$.

That's the problem with this generation. A lot of the time, it just seems like they are pushing one or the other. This is partially Nintendo's fault (graphics aren't all that important), but it's also the fault of developers. And it's not just the Wii. On the other end of spectrum with PS3 and Xbox 360, we are just seeing the same games with updated graphics (fault of devs). I'm tired of these arguments. We need both decent graphics (presentation) and gameplay.

[QUOTE="Bulldog19892"]It' not so much graphics for me. It's more about performance. If you can have really great graphics and have the game run at a constant frame rate, than that's awesome. Gameplay is first, then performance, then graphics. I couldn't stand STALKER because the graphics sucked, and yet it still ran bad, even on my GeForce 7950 GT and dual core processor.Robnyc22

Agreed....but I'd like to go a step further.

Foer me its about Presentation.....where presentation can range from storyline to innovative & unique gameplay design to aesthetics.....now if the presentation of a game requires a high-end engine, then so be it, but thats not always the case.

Look at Shadow of the Colossus...its not running on any fancy engine, it was on the weakest platform at the time, but its presentation was among the top of the year.

I'd agree with that statement.

Yes, I miss the arcades. I really miss the social aspect. We had a whole community. We were like brothers (there were some girls too, but they were rare). I loved the atmosphere of it as well. You can't replicate that with x-box live or psn. The fact that you can trash talk and play with a live person next to you will never compare with an online match.

 However, I agree that once the arcade experience was replicated at home (ex. Tekken 1,2,3,etc), arcades were less appealing. Also, the amount of cash I spent could have bought me a couple of systems. But oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Wii is a next gen console. Why must it borrow from the PS2?CooVee

Well, it happened last time with GC, it will happen again with the Wii. Until PS2 finally dies, which won't be for a while considering the price of PS3, Wii will continue to get PS2 with tacked on controls, decent controls at best. Factor 5 proved with the Star Wars series what was possible with the GC, which would be even more so on the Wii. However, since they jumped ship to go with Sony, I think we will never see the true potential of the system outside of a few games like Mario Galaxy, which looks nothing short of awesome.