Rpruett said:
jarrod said:
Rpruett said:
jarrod said:
|
Rpruett said:
Absolutely. Which is especially why 'Game quality' is such a subjective term in this discussion. Price (Being lower than the competition) and Motion Controls (Being unique within either of the three companies) are not subjective values here though.
|
Who's arguing game quality? Let's use an objective measure, like game sales, to prove out which console has the most appealing software from a massmarket perspective.
And again, there's zero indication that Wii's sold due to it's (initially) lower pricepoint. And as I said before, most context surrounding the price (2nd hand prices, length of time w/o a price drop, historical pricepoints of Nintendo systems relative to performance, etc) more indicate the opposite. I've yet to see anyone bring up a single thing that really indicates being a whopping $50 cheaper than a HD system for it's first two years (and then $50 more expensive it's next year) was the driving factor in sales here. The argument there seems to be it was cheaper, so that must've been why it sold, without a shred of supporting evidence as that...
|
We have no idea what market Nintendo has tapped with their games sales this time around. It won't be evident for years what market they hit. Did they hit the fitness market? If so, will this market keep buying future video game consoles? Are they repeat buyers? Will they purchase essentially exercise peripherals every generation?
Game sales can be related console sales (Especially ones entirely bundled with console sales like Wii Sports). That is a crucial slap in the face to my core point. Which is the inclusion of motion controls / low entry price has created a scenario where it's intriguing and different to try a Wii and it's cheap enough that everyone jump in and do it. The games were after thoughts after the initial jump in purchase. This is also why I think the Wii has sold a ton of shovelware. (Not meant to be offensive) and why Third Party Developers have continued to push the shovelware. Sure, some quality games have sold very well due to a myriad of reasons like looking good / nostalgia / etc /etc. (Like NSMB).
People who went in head first and bought a Wii really did so because Motion controls were fun (Either from personal or second hand experience) and the price was cheap enough for a person of any income level. You didn't need 18 jobs to buy a Wii on Day one.
And how in the world is there zero indication? The Wii had outsold the 360/PS3 on day one of it's lifespan. Look by the end of it's first year? Price is DIRECTLY related in every single purchase. I love how people keep mentioning the $300 barebones horrible 360 and the $500 barebones horrible PS3. The 360's barebones SKU needed so much additional stuff to function in it's intended capacity that you ended up spending over $400 to begin with and the PS3s barebones SKU was so horrendous that they discontinued it.
I mean 360 (Had a yearly subscription fee for online if that interested you in the slightest bit), the core came with a 'wired' controller, composite cables, and no hard drive and no wireless? My lord, that's a lot of accessories just to have a truly functional 360.
In that context, it was tremendously cheaper than a fully functional 360 and/or PS3 (To get the package you were believing in when you bought a PS3/360 you had to spend $400 / $600 respectively compared to the Wii at $250. No console has ever been priced higher than $300 and won a generation. Food for thought.
Price relative to the competition is what matters. Consumers aren't stupid, they saw right through MS / Sony seling them barebones systems and knew full well they would have to spend a nice chunk of coin to get the system.
|
But really, I think you're missing a central point, and you've actually indadvertedly touched it at the same time... "Motion controls were fun". A control interface on it's own isn't inherently "fun"; it's just a tool, it's how it's implemented in software that does that. I said before that Wii Sports was basically the platform's proof of concept, and that's really what sold new consumers on it. That's why Reggie insisting on bundling it outside Japan was such a genius stroke, it ensured Wii Sports was always there as the first game new potential consumers would play at a kiosk or their friend's place, it was always there to "sell" new people on Wii. Wii sold largely on word of mouth, with a viral approach to people outside the traditional market spaces, and Wii Sports was really central to that plan.
And again, I'm not seeing any concrete evidence concerning pricepoints from you... this argument is boiled down to "Wii was cheaper and sold more, ergo it sold more because it was cheaper", which is a logical fallacy. What I'm asking for is any real indication that Wii sold due to it's lower pricepoint, which is something no one's seemingly been able to bring to the table. Does it selling well above MSRP 2nd hand for years indicate that? Does it being the most expensive, and yet best selling, Nintendo console in history prove that? Does it going longer than any other console in history without a price reduction prove that?
And why are you continually shitting on the Arcade/Core? The Core was exact same industry standard setup we had with PS2, it needed a memory card or HDD, it came with a wired controller, VGA cables, so what? Was the "real" PS2 launch price $400 using this logic? Consumers must also be dumber than you think, considering how the $199 Arcade flew off shevles...
|
You are missing the point that it doesn't matter what Nintendo prices their system at. It doesn't matter if it's the most expensive Nintendo system to date. None of that matters. What matters in the eyes of the consumer is how does it stack up to the competition. In the consumers eyes, the Wii was a much cheaper system than either of the outputs the competition was offering.
By offering such a low entry point and drastically different control scheme, Nintendo got a lot of people (A lot more than MS or Sony) to bite on the Wii system. Once they had this massive amount of people, they started over dosing them with quality Nintendo software. The thing is, Nintendo had great software on the Gamecube and N64 too. It's just a myriad of reasons limited them from reaching a full audience and therefore their games didn't receive the credit they deserved.
Let's fast forward 300 years from now. Sony / MS / Nintendo all still exist and are the three largest Video game console producing companies. In the year 2310, Nintendo prices their console at a whopping $250,000. Highest priced Nintendo console to date. Is that even relevant? No. If Sony comes in with a console priced $600,000 and MS comes in with a console priced at $400,000 the Nintendo output will still be considered a far cheaper option.
This isn't the year 2000 anymore. Had people wanted to purchase a PS2, they certainly could have for what $150? $120 at the time? The fact of the matter is, if you wanted a next-gen HD console you wanted a hard-drive on a system that essentially requires it to utilize a lot of basic features. You probably wanted a wireless controller (Which every other system had) and most likely you cared (Atleast on a passing sense) about HD (Which you were going to need to eventually buy cords for anyways.).
And we aren't speaking about the Arcade . We are talking about the Core. By the time the Arcade unit (Which included some modern amenities) was announced the Wii had already had around a 6 million console sale lead over the almost 2 year old 360 and almost year old PS3.
|
