KungKras said:
I'm glad you mentioned the Wii. Because it proves my point. First to correct your major error. Wii did not get good support. Most of the industry hated it. Just look at gaming news articles from that time. If you don't agree about that then you have the memory of a gold fish. There are examples on Wii that we can compare to other systems. The age-old port of Resident Evil 4 sold on the same order of magnitude that the new release of it did on PS2. Call of Duty 3 OUTSOLD the PS3 version. It's always the same with you people," third parties sell worse on Nintendo, except for when they don't, let's not count it when they don't" |
Nintendo would've gotten a ton more support had the Wii be given competent hardware, they charged $250 for a souped up version of a $99 console (GameCube) with a plastic controller thrown in.
Nintendo easily could've for $250 made the Wii way more powerful than it was, the XBox 360 had a $299.99 model and that was released a full year before the Wii.
Blame Nintendo on that, and your COD example doesn't even make sense .... the Wii did get more COD games, so Activision did support it, what exactly are they supposed to do, magically make the XBox 360 version run on hardware that's like 1/10th the spec?
The PS3 also we know sold like shit its first year being $600 and all, subsequent versions of COD on the PS3 pulled away from the Wii in sales I believe.
Wii's third party situation is entirely on Nintendo, no one put a gun to their head and forced them to make the system an overclocked GameCube. They would have gotten every single multiplat under the sun had the system been able to run those games. If the GameCube at $199.99 was a full generation leap over the N64, there's no excuse for the Wii at $250 (with a plastic controller that cost maybe $15 at best to mass produce) to not have provided a huge upgrade in performance.







