By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
windbane on 25 June 2007
Edit Thread
RolStoppable said:
windbane said:

Oh, ok, so it's cool for Nintendo to add things and charge more, just not Sony or Microsoft. I'd much rather buy a $200 Wii.

That said, I love how inflation is not taken into account. The Wii is the cheapest or 2nd cheapest console ever at $250. I'd rather they raised the tech a little. The 360 is slightly above average (at $400, if you want a Core you're not getting a 360 imo), and the PS3 is high but not the highest. But hey, if you count blu-ray's worth at a low $200, it's "practically in the same price range as previous" Sony "consoles." Just saying.


The things Nintendo added to the Wii that the GC didn't have at launch have value to gamers. A packed in game is considered as higher value by a gamer. Internal flash memory that doesn't make it neccessary to purchase a memory card is considered as higher value by a gamer. A new gaming experience is considered as higher value by a gamer.

A bluray drive isn't a higher value considered by a gamer. It's not needed for games. HD graphics aren't considered a higher value by a gamer if they don't add anything new to the gaming experience.

Note: The assumptions in the two paragraphs above are only true for the majority of gamers, there is a small group of gamers that doesn't see a higher value in the Wii offerings, but sees a higher value in HD graphics and/or Bluray.

Don't start arguing this with me or I'll simply provide you a link to the frontpage of vgchartz. There's nothing better than sales numbers to prove my point right.


Sales numbers don't make it more right, it shows the public finds it more acceptable right now.  The blu-ray drive does had value to a gamer but the total cost is simply too much for a lot of people.  That internal flash memory sure doesn't last long if you download a lot of games, either.   Gamers are already having to exchange cards and/or delete items to make room for games they want to play.  I'd say the 60GB HD in the PS3 is also added gamer value, allowing more game installs for faster loading and more downloadable content (including games).

I'd rather buy a cheaper Wii that I can add a larger card or HD to, and I'd rather buy it without Wii Sports.  I'd rather have pack-in hardware that will be utilized for a lot of my games rather than a pack-in game that I don't want.  I think Wii Sports is a great selling point for the console because it's simple enough for anyone to play, but I don't think the thrill would last very long.  Sales numbers say that the cheaper Wii is easier to swallow and Wii Sports probably sells a lot of consoles, but that doesn't make the pack-in any more justified to me.