By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
misterd on 03 July 2007
Edit Thread
a.l.e.x59 said:
HappySqurriel said:
Blue3 said:
Probably right. Wii lacks the hardware power for a good 5/6 year life cycle.

I don't see how hardware power has anything to do with how long a console lasts ...

The difference in quality of graphics and processing power between the N64 and Playstation was huge but the playstation continued to sell (and have Million selling games) years after the N64 was discontinued; following up on that the XBox and Gamecube both had processing power advantages over the PS2 yet had much shorter lifespans.

Certainly, the difference in processing power between the Wii and PS3/XBox 360 is very large but so is the price difference. Eventually (say 2009/2010) the Wii will probably be $99 (with Wii Sports) While Microsoft is still trying to sell the XBox 360 for $200 (or more) and the PS3 is $300 (or more); there are far more people in the world who are willing to spend $99 on a console than are willing to spend $299 on a console.

Playstation ($299) > Nintendo 64 ($199)

Playstation 2 ($299) > Gamecube ($199)

Price??? No...


The PS2 vs GCN comparison is off for several reasons.

1) The hottest commodity in 2000-2001 were DVD players. A cheap DVD player at that time ran $100, essentially neutralizing the cost difference. Sony apparantly was counting on BR to have similar demand, but it clearly doesn't, so it can't be counted on to offset the cost of the PS3 (yet - BR may still catch on).

2) GCN just had piss poor marketing, and did nothing to correct the misconception that its lower price meant it had less power than the competition.

3) The one holiday where that $100 price difference existed Nintendo had one worthwhile title, while Sony had a stellar lineup (thanks to the 1 year lead time) and, as it was the GCN's launch year, Sony had far more consoles on the shelves to sell. Within 6 months, Sony cut the PS2s price to $199. Nintendo followed with a drop to $149, but given all the other factors, $50 was just not a big enough difference.

 As for The PS and N64, the PS cut its price to $199 almost six months before the N64 was launched. The two consoles maintained similar prices for most of the generation (I can't find an exact price history for the N64, but I believe the two were either matched in price or a small advantage ($20) was held by the PS).

In neither case was the price difference ever as great as $200-350, which is nearly enough to purchase another console. I can't think of another time where there was this great a disparity between the primary consoles (let's leave the 3DO out of this).