Analyst firm says Sony is responsible for Nintendo's lack of third party content

[Zod95]

Scizor_99 said:

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.

I was thinking about the Wii, which was a Game Cube + Motion for 250€. Roughly the same tech/price.

Regarding the WiiU, it wouldn't have been valued at 850€ since it doesn't have neither Cell nor a Blu-ray player. PS3 costed 600€ because of that while X360 costed 300€ or 400€ (depending on the version). That's a big difference, so comparing WiiU to PS3 is not fair at all. Comparing it to X360 is more like it, and the 350€ of the WiiU were at the same level as the 300€-400€ of the X360.

Both Wii and WiiU had the same tech/price as their previous generations.

 

Scizor_99 said:

But the fact remains that the term "generation" refers to a set of consoles/handhelds released within a loosely-defined timeframe.

Can you present a relevant source to that "fact"?

 

Scizor_99 said:

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.

Many people actually say "a console of the latest generation", not necessarily 7th or 8th gen because they may not know that nomenclature, but I assure you this is a realistic scenario.

 

Scizor_99 said:

That is hyperbole. It's well-known that the Wii was simply an overclocked GC. However, the Wii U is a somewhat different story. It is build for low power consumption (to stop overheating), with a GPU that does most of the work that a CPU would normally do. This is a more modern design architecture that isn't found in the PS3/X360 and is found in the PS4/XOne. The reason that some ports show little to no difference is that the kind of games that developers are porting don't have a considerable audience on Nintendo platforms, and they don't see as worth the time and money to optimize it for the Wii U's architecture. To use your number difference analogy, the Wii U vs. the Xbox One would be more like 300 to 1000, rather than 101 to 1000.

Of course it is hyperbole, it was just to prove a point.

The absence of multiplatform differences regardless the different potential of the WiiU reminds me of the PS3. The same happened and Sony had to prove the console was not inferior (rather superior) by themselves, using 1st party games. But somehow Nintendo isn't able to do the same.

 

Scizor_99 said:

The other thing to note is the controller, which is being simultaneously being displayed to at what was tested as a lag rate of 1 fps (invisible to the human eye). It also supports multiple tecnological features which are absent into the controllers of the Xbox One and the PS4. Whether or not you find such features useful is, of course, another matter, t but his adds to the technical merit of the system.

You have a point here. Although it's not about core capabilities that allow games to go further in the backbone of the videogaming evoluion, the 2-screen system consumes resources and it's definitely a technical merit. I guess it's up to each gamer to decide whether it counts or not.

 

PS: you are a very good poster, please accept my friend request