Zod95 said:
Excuse me? The very text you've quoted tells you that. Look: "Thus, any company that challenges this basic law of the market offering the same tech/price ratio as the last generation is being arrogant...Nintendo is the perfect case about this.". What additional explanations do you need?
Wii Sports and Wii Play were the system sellers, the others were bonus. WiiU has also got 2 system sellers and some bonus games. Are you arguing about the size of the bonus? That doesn't make much difference. Wii would have sold almost the same even only with those 2 flagship games at the beginning. And what does have PS4 that can't be brought for another system? Killzone and Knack? That's even less and see how the console is selling. Games are undoubtly very important but what makes a console to sell at the begining is the concept vs price. Wii had an appealing concept and price at that time, WiiU hasn't. That's the point. Otherwise, what is the WiiU's excuse to sell poorly now that it has many titles already? As for the marketing, I see some WiiU commercials in my country and there were no Wii commercials back then in 2006/2007. I guess you are "unlucky". Regarding the Wii's audience, I'm sure it was mainly console gaming newcomers. Then, some have evolved into richer eco-systems (PlayStation and Xbox) while others just went out of the market by the same door they came, although I don't know which case is more significant. But I'm curious about your thread, let me know once you create it.
That was not meant to be a personal attack at all, I'm sorry if you took it like one. It's normal that, when we don't use solid criteria / boundaries / logic, we let our wishes to take control over our subjective assessment. That happens with you as it happens with everybody. I was not criticizing that, since we can't do much about it. The only way to fight subjectiveness is by avoiding it (using objectiveness). And when you use multiple criteria you're not doing so. That's what I was criticizing. Again, I was not criticizing you but your option.
Does a logic makes more/less sense depeding on the number of supporters? That's funny.
Do we have a committee to determine the weight of each parameter of the multiple criteria used by Wikipedia? So why would that be necessary for the tech? I know tech evolution is fluid, you just need to determine boundaries from which it is considered one generation and not the other. Release date is another fluid criteria. If that was the only one, would you need a committee to determine the week from which a generation would end while another would start? I don't think so. The problem is not where to put the boundaries (that is the easy part), the problem is if you can actually do so. With multiple criteria (withouth determined weights for each parameter) it becomes next to impossible because here you have real ambiguity (caused by contradicting criteria).
The vast majority uses what has been used so far. They use it because it was used, and it will continue to be used because they're using it. It's a cycle. And it probably began to be the most informative criteria since console makers back then attempted to do the best they could, so the launch date was more aligned to the tech level and eveything was coherent. Not anymore. Now we have Nintendo and Zeebo challenging that logic. I don't bother to get out of the cycle and use what is most informative now. When a gamer says he/she is thinking about buying a 7th gen console or that he/she would like to try 7th gen features, I assure you he/she is not thinking about console release dates. To call the Wii 7th gen is to misinform that gamer. And recently we had a user here on the site creating a thread about the 8th gen where he only mentioned PS4 and XOne. People complained so much that he changed the title to something like "consoles with more than 1TFPS". Does this seems reasonable to you? What are the generations meant to be if they're not to be useful? Why does have a guy to mention the number of flops just to be clear about the context of what he wants to say (which is very simple and basic)? |
Excuse me? The very text you've quoted tells you that. Look: "Thus, any company that challenges this basic law of the market offering the same tech/price ratio as the last generation is being arrogant...Nintendo is the perfect case about this.". What additional explanations do you need?
Except they didn't do that. THe PS3 lauched at $650 at the Xbox 360 launched at $500. Even then, they were sold at a loss. The Wii U launched at $350. A teardown of the Wii U shortly after launch revealed that the Wii U cost about $280 to build. The controller cost about $100 to build. That toylas $380, thus a ~$30 loss.The parts have obvious dropped in value over time, thus enabling them to sell it at $300 (still at a loss). Also note that Basic bundles, which are sold without a game, stopped production due to low demand, so it is always being sold with a game bundled in, thus saving you $60 on a game. If something like the Wii U were released back in 2006, it would probably have been be vauled at around $850.
The vast majority uses what has been used so far. They use it because it was used, and it will continue to be used because they're using it. It's a cycle. And it probably began to be the most informative criteria since console makers back then attempted to do the best they could, so the launch date was more aligned to the tech level and eveything was coherent. Not anymore. Now we have Nintendo and Zeebo challenging that logic.
But the fact remains that the term "generation" refers to a set of consoles/handhelds released within a loosely-defined timeframe. Genrations are commonly attributed to tech because they prefer to play on tech that is good for the current time period; hence why people have been calling the Wii U "last-gen'. But the fact is that it doesn't have anything to do with the tech at all. Until the definition of the term changes, it is simply incorrect to call the Wii U seventh gen or the Wii U sixth gen, whether or not you take issue with it.
When a gamer says he/she is thinking about buying a 7th gen console or that he/she would like to try 7th gen features, I assure you he/she is not thinking about console release dates. To call the Wii 7th gen is to misinform that gamer.
Except that this isn't a realistic scenario. A gamer wouldn't ask about a "7th gen console"; he would ask about a "new console" or whatever has recently become available on the market. And in such a scenario, the informative thing to do would be to describe what the PS3, Xbox 360 and the Wii offer as opposed to one another. The comparison would likely favor the Xbox 360 and the PS3, but there is chance that the gamer would be more interested in the Wii. And though the Wii's install base was comprised of both gamers and casuals, the sales show that some people - many, in fact - were interested in it.
