Most Wii games still don't look as good as PS2 games, they will in the future, but they don't yet.

Why would microsoft let the 360 die when they have steady sales both software and hardware in USA? I mean the 360 has a good chance to pull a profit if the adress and solve the quality issue?

Other than that I think PS3owner is a good exampel why PS3 and xbox360 fans is talking more about t fight between those system than vs the Wii. Because Wii chosed to experiment with how we interact with the games instead of increasing the graphical powers they want to place it with the last gen. They also repeately state that as soon as game X or that HD penetration increase the Wii will slow down and therefore they don't need to care about Wii sales.

Right and wrong. quite hard to differentiate actually. although Wii is also fighting for the gaming market, it is different from PS3 vs X360. Lets just say PS3/X360 is fighting for the same little group within the huge Wii market. Another comparison to this is.... Wii is selling soda, PS3/X360 is selling liquor.

If you ask fanboys, they'll either tell you the Wii is a fad, or they simply can't get past the fact that some people may not want bleeding edge HD graphics.

If you ask the company reps, they'll say Nintendo isn't competing with them because they are going after a different market. This is partly true, except that Nintendo is going after every gamer - and that includes many of those that have in the past bought a PS or XBox. They are also competing for developers. Even though they may not get the same games, each company has limited time and resources to devote to games. If they are devoting those to the Wii, they have less to devote to the PS3 and 360.

That said, it is true that Sony and MS are most directly in competition with each other. On a small scale, their current systems have similar capabilities and are targeting similar demographics (males, teens-late 20s or 30s). They will share many of the same games, where the Wii, by necessity, will not. But that's just the short term.

Long term, both Sony and Microsoft envision one unified entertainment console in every living room which will serve as TV receiver, DVR, internet browser, movie player, and game system. This is where their true goal lies, and it is several generations out of reach. However, they believe that the company that builds the biggest base among gamers will be the one to control all living rooms, everywhere (BWAHAHAHA!). WHY they believe that gaming consoles are the route to this Grail eludes me - and Nintendo too because they want no part of it. But whether they are right or wrong, that is the battle the two are really fighting for.

I personally considered myself a PC gamer, with Wii I have returned to console gaming and also bought a DS for my girlfriend and I. The thing is if I was only looking for technical power and graphical amazement, I would stick to PC gaming. Nobody can tell me with my 2G ram intel dual core and 512 m graphical ram a Xbox or PS3 is more powerful, so when I was looking for a console I wasn't looking for the most powerful one. The blue-ray interested me, but not enough to justify the price. most Xbox games are available on the PC anyways, so I bought a Wii for the experience. Even though I played games like Godfather before, the Wii experience was something different and worthwhile.
What I mean is, I am a hardcore gamer, and if the Wii was something like the Gamecube I might have bought a PS3, the way I see it the Wii actually did take away a sale from the PS3 in my case so they are in competition. I dunno, maybe they don't care for having the winning console, or they can just settle for second place. I really don't see any glory in saying the Xbox360 is better than the PS3 or vice versa anyway.

Personally, I don't think the Wii will survive for too much longer with mostly first-party titles being the cream of the crop. Sure they have more third-party games than the Cube, but it ain't enough. Look what happened last generation. It went the other way around for Microsoft. They had great third-party support but their first-party games just sucked (mostly). Sony had both so that's why they won.

How do you figure when most Wii games are PS2 ports?

@ Haloooooooo: with the Wii having great first party games, the fastest growing userbase, and the cheapest platform to develope for what makes you think it will do worse than the PS2, will third parties run awaiy because of the 3 to 6 big Nintendo games each year or because cheaper games make more money in less time, please explain why this generation Nintendo will not have first and third party games to give it a long run.

misterd said:

>>If you ask fanboys, they'll either tell you the Wii is a fad, or they simply can't
>>get past the fact that some people may not want bleeding edge HD graphics.


I agree with you totally, but would also conjecture that the fanboys of these systems would be touting whatever feature their systems (supposedly) holds for the moment.

Look at HDD's. Effectively, the advantage of the HDD of last gen went to the XBOX, with PS2 games using it rarely. Now with MS selling a HDD-less 360, the advantage of the HDD goes to the PS3. I don't see those people who touted the XBOX1 HDD now touting the PS3, even though 360 games rarely use a HDD (as with the PS2).

Yes and they also had the biggest userbase which gave the best 3rd party support. This time they don't.

Other than that I think we can say that the Big N most probarbly atleast will double their userbase this gen. I personally think that 50 million + shouldnt be a problem.