| EntilZha said: To say the Wii is not as powerful as the other two console because Nintendo "could not compete" with MS and Sony is wrong, in my opinion. This is how I see the events leading up to Wii. Nintendo realized there is a relatively small number of "core" gamers out there, and all 3 console makers are trying to get their business. If all three make similar consoles, there are only so many "core" gamers to go around. Nintendo decided to go after people that either do not game anymore, or never gamed. That is a big untapped market that are mostly intimidated by the high tech consoles with the million button controllers. However, how to get these people interested? It has to be affordable, it has to look easy to play, and it has to have a "hook" that can not be found on any other console. Whether you like the Wii or not, you have to admit it was a stroke of genius. Gaming has never been more mainstream. MS and Sony should thank Nintendo. Many of the new gamers that start off with just a Wii have branched out to try the others as well. More gamers is good for all console manufacturers. |
I think Nintendo chose the lower tech because the Wii remote and motion control was a huge risk that they didn't know would pay off.
They know it works, they dominated the market, they will definitely throw some money into the hardware this time around since odds are weill be seeing a modification of the wii remote for the next generation, less R&D towards control and more towards the hardware and other features.
dtewi said:
No. They'll focus on something that matters.
I disagree, while graphics may not be necesarry for a great game (as shown by the excellent titles from previous generatiosn that are still amazing to play), they do matter for support, sadly. Noone can deny that one of the major reasons why the Wii is getting so few high profile games is because of hardware limitations. If the Wii had simialr power to the 360, we wouldn't see developers giving it the shaft as often as they have.
