Soundwave said:
There's plenty of advantages to having a better chip, it never needed to be an either or choice. The SNES and N64 and GameCube were all huge upgrades over previous hardware and all three were very affordable, so what ... something happens to technology in 2006 that makes tech so much more expensive just 5 years after the GameCube? I don't buy it. Hell even the DS was a full generational leap over the Game Boy while also having a more expensive "gimmick" ... a second panel touchscreen was likely a helluva lot more expensive than a plastic controller with motion sensors and an IR pointer. The truth is I think Nintendo chickened out on investing too heavily on the Wii concept, it it flopped (same with the DS), the plan was likely to move ahead with Game Boy Next/Next-Gen Nintendo system. This is why they pushed hard to have the DS seen as a "third pillar", so they could wash their hands of it in the event that it didn't go well. They didn't want to risk much on the Wii, so if it flopped, they would've just have recycled the GameCube and not have expending a ton of resources on it. Their lack of vision though cost them dearly though, because they could've probably sold 150 million+ systems if they actually had real developer support, and no developer would have been able to not support the system with their main games, because the publishers (business suits) would not allow such a platform to be ignored. And the system likely would've have finished much stronger in the second half of the life cycle, when more and more people had migrated over to HDTV sets. |
Ya no duh there's advantages to it, and I literally just said it isn't an either or choice, but you'd have to increase the price which is not the point of the wii.
It has nothing to do with specs. You're acting like a generational upgrade in specs ALWAYS costs the same as Motion controls. You're saying "Well they released a huge generational bumping console every 6 years for an affordable price...why can't they do it with the Wii AND with Motion controls?" Motion controls automatically account for some of the money that would have been spent on that generational bump in previous generations. In otherwords, when you bought a gamecube for 200$, you were investing most of that money into the generational bump. When you bought a Wii for 250$, you were spending most of that money on the motion control technology, and some of it on the small bump it recieved over the gamecube. To have both would mean nintendo making less of a profit, or increasing the systems price to the point of less sales.
"Hell even the DS was a full generational leap over the Game Boy while also having a more expensive "gimmick" ... a second panel touchscreen was likely a helluva lot more expensive than a plastic controller with motion sensors and an IR pointer. "
...dude...do you even understand how innovation works. Like, at all? First of all, the DS screens were very very very cheap, they were also very small. And sure there was a generational bump as well as a gimmick, but that gimmick costed less than the motion controls. Also, the DS was a handheld system, Nintendo was *forced* to make the system affordable. If they didn't make it affordable the system would have sold terribly. The market was much different, they were FORCED to make it affordable. Do you remember the 3DS? Remember how poorly it sold because of price? Remember the Vita as well? Sure they both had bad launches for multiple reasons, but the price was a huge factor. Let's not forget that the Playstation Portable released in 2004 with MUCH BETTER graphics than the DS. You see the Gameboy Advance and DS and think "Man, Nintendo really delivered a huge genrational leap AND innovation". But you only think that because you're comparing it to a 2d console. Compare it to the PSP which released in the same year, and there's obviously a huge spec difference. Let's say you're right and motion controls were extremely cheap - the Wii was still 150$ less than the 360 and 350$ less than the Playstation 3. They probably thought it was a great price for a small affordable innovative console that they could net a huge profit on with it's low costs.
"The truth is I think Nintendo chickened out on investing too heavily on the Wii concept, it it flopped (same with the DS), the plan was likely to move ahead with Game Boy Next/Next-Gen Nintendo system. This is why they pushed hard to have the DS seen as a "third pillar", so they could wash their hands of it in the event that it didn't go well. "
This has literally been confirmed, what are you getting at?
"because they could've probably sold 150 million+ systems if they actually had real developer support, and no developer would have been able to not support the system with their main games, because the publishers (business suits) would not allow such a platform to be ignored. And the system likely would've have finished much stronger in the second half of the life cycle, when more and more people had migrated over to HDTV sets. "
I disagree for many reasons but there's not a point in explaining it. Obviously me supporting Nintendo's success with the Wii does not mean I wish Nintendo to replicate it with other consoles, I do want a nintendo that cares about specs, but you're wrong for various reasons.
