HappySqurriel said: Historically speaking, videogames have thrived because they were inexpensive entertainment/hobby; you could buy the hardware for $100 to $200, there were tons of used and discount games for $10 to $20 (new games were typically $50 or less), the controllers were $20, and you saw all the benefits whether or not you owned a TV made in the past decade. Microsoft and Sony expect you to spend $400 to $600 for the hardware, $60 for the games, $50 for the controllers, and you don't maximize your gameplay experience until you buy a $1,000 TV and pay $50 per month for online gameplay. Even though many things about the Wii are uncharacteristically expensive, it looks down right affordable compared to the XBox 360 and PS3.

I absolutely agree, and to add to that in the UK a PS3 is $850,new games are $120 (Seriously), a controller is $60 with no special features and the TV is $1000. So to start out with a PS3 here could cost $2200 or $1200 without a TV.

You don't even have to read this guy's quotes to realize what is going on. Just look at the sales charts.

ChichiriMuyo said: Androo said: PS1 was a lot weaker than the N64 I wish people would stop propogating this lie.  For the love of god, people, processor speed isn't the only thing that determines the power of a console! Anyway, on the matter of the article itself... the guy is full of shit.  He even admits his entire career is based on (relatively) beautiful graphics and practically nothing more.  If that's not a sign to him that graphics matter, then I see no reason to listen to a word he says.  I wouldn't listen to a pro wrestler that said steroids were awful and to be avoided either (though I came to that conclusion on my own...) simply because I, apparently unlike some others, have a bullshit detector.  And it smelled this pile from as far away as a mile. Gameplay matters, yes.  But it's not the ONLY thing that matters just as graphics aren't.  You need a balance of all things if you want to hit a wide market.  And as a console manufacturer I'd want to hit the biggest market possible.  A differing trend for a single year doesn't change the game, it just point out that you need your scales to be balanced if you want to put on a good show.  Really, I'd be ashamed if I were him for assuming that the Wii players are the same group of people as the PS2 players.Â

Then what does? As far as i know, N64 was superior in everything except memory capasity of it's game roms and price (game prices were of course superior). PSX just was a lot better for the developer. No, he is talking business. Crash didn't look not much anything. Maybe it was good for a PSX game. But in this case, the competition was between games in the same platform. It didn't compete with SM64, since SM64 was superior by any ways. Graphics matter the most for the first 10-15 minutes, after that, you don't see the difference between Metal Gear and MGS4. Besides, if it would have been about graphics, nobody would have bought PS2. And look at the sales numbers and tell me that graphics sell. Traditionally consoles have been made as high-tech as possible what you can get for console to be sold in retail for 200. This is what is wrong with 360 and PS3. People also want devices, which are easy and simple to use. The people who bought PS2:s, are now the people who buy Wiis. Of course they buy 360:s, but a lot less. Just read what HappySqurriel said, that explains pretty good what consoles are about.

He's alive and cute as ever... but that's beside the point *grin*

I took the time to read his entire interview, as I'm curious what he's been up to these days. I knew he was working on a comic, reading from his 'my space' page, but it's always nice to hear some more. I've got the feeling several people around here didn't read the entire interview or are blindfolded to even understand Jason's opinion.

Graphics "do" matter, of course they do, butt ugly graphics which gives you a migraine with the first glimpse at the game, is not a good thing of course. Cruis 'n everyone??? What Jason means is that gamers, prefer entertainment above technology.

Look at the Gamefaqs poll of yesterday:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=2853

As you can see, most people only use their consoles for "gaming only". Most technological advanced options probably aren't as much as interesting as the real meaning of game consoles... the "gaming" aspect. A while ago there was even a poll on the Internet about if people knew that their 360 / PS3 console supported HD. Surprisely enough, most of them "didn't" know about that.

Jason doesn't imply about "what" kind of games are important these days, but that people simply wishes to have a game console, with an interesting price tag, easy approachable, plus with games focussing mostly on gameplay, concept, joy than on graphics, no matter if that is a MGS or a Mario. He doesn't say graphics aren't important, but it shouldn't be the main focus to interest "most" gamers and broaden the entire gaming community.

he makes a good point...

HappySqurriel said: Historically speaking, videogames have thrived because they were inexpensive entertainment/hobby; you could buy the hardware for $100 to $200, there were tons of used and discount games for $10 to $20 (new games were typically $50 or less), the controllers were $20, and you saw all the benefits whether or not you owned a TV made in the past decade. Microsoft and Sony expect you to spend $400 to $600 for the hardware, $60 for the games, $50 for the controllers, and you don't maximize your gameplay experience until you buy a $1,000 TV and pay $50 per month for online gameplay. Even though many things about the Wii are uncharacteristically expensive, it looks down right affordable compared to the XBox 360 and PS3.

I take it you don't remember the costs of cartridges at their height?  Also you bash Microsoft and Sony for their controller costs, why not Nintendo since it cost $20 for the Nunchuk and $40 for the Remote?  Does Nintendo get a free pass from you or do you just like to bash the others, so which is it?

Oh and where do you live that it cost $50 per month for online gaming?  And why single out Microsoft and Sony for that when Sony's is free and Microsoft's is $50 per year, maybe you're thinking of Xbox Live and just don't know what you're talking about?

It's strange how graphics suddenly stopped mattering once Nintendo decided it couldn't keep up with the graphics arms race. Before that I remember Nintendo fans comparing Resident Evil 4 on the GC to the PS2.

Also it's more about price than graphics suddenly "not mattering" anymore. Lets be honest, if the PS3 and 360 were $200 they'd be selling a lot more, does that mean that graphics suddenly started mattering or that a lot of it is the actual price?

And about the gameplay over graphics, everyone wants good gameplay it's idiotic to think otherwise and it's idiotic to think that developers have to choose one or the other or that the more you put into one the less you get of the other.

""""Really, I'd be ashamed if I were him for assuming that the Wii players are the same group of people as the PS2 players. """

==> me too, even more considering we are at the beginnig of the next-gen, so usually early adopters are NOT casual gamers BUT hardcore/core gamers.
Right now, Wii is doing something really news :
early adopters are in a good part casual !!!!
the console just succeed to bypass the hardcore crowd (except the hardcore nintendo base ofc)

"""""""" cost of video games is limiting the number of people capable of buying more expensive to produce games. It doesn't take much business sense to realize that higher cost and lower potential sales are not a good business plan. """""""

==> +1 for Albonius

little question:

you have two games:

one on ps3/x360 beautiful on graphics but poor on gameply...

then one on wii beautiful on gameplay but poor on graphics...



wii fan answer:
buy wii one

x60/ps3 fan answer:
buy ps3/x360 one

multi answer:
buy wii one

this is truth...

gameply wins always on graphics...


naturally the optimum is having a good graphics and a good gameplay...

but for sure a gamer never buy a game with poor gameplay,even if have super mega graphics...

Legend11 said: HappySqurriel said: Historically speaking, videogames have thrived because they were inexpensive entertainment/hobby; you could buy the hardware for $100 to $200, there were tons of used and discount games for $10 to $20 (new games were typically $50 or less), the controllers were $20, and you saw all the benefits whether or not you owned a TV made in the past decade. Microsoft and Sony expect you to spend $400 to $600 for the hardware, $60 for the games, $50 for the controllers, and you don't maximize your gameplay experience until you buy a $1,000 TV and pay $50 per month for online gameplay. Even though many things about the Wii are uncharacteristically expensive, it looks down right affordable compared to the XBox 360 and PS3.   I take it you don't remember the costs of cartridges at their height?  Also you bash Microsoft and Sony for their controller costs, why not Nintendo since it cost $20 for the Nunchuk and $40 for the Remote?  Does Nintendo get a free pass from you or do you just like to bash the others, so which is it? Oh and where do you live that it cost $50 per month for online gaming?  And why single out Microsoft and Sony for that when Sony's is free and Microsoft's is $50 per year, maybe you're thinking of Xbox Live and just don't know what you're talking about?

I do remember cartridge costs and it was one of the main reasons the N64 struggled against the Playstation; the games started at a higher price, took longer to hit a budget price and at their budget price were more expensive than budget Playstation games. The game cost thing is one of the main problems I see Microsoft facing with the XBox 360 mainly because the XBox 360 has been on the market for 2 years without much of a budget game library (inspite of having a library of developed games which would be well suited to that purpose)

As for the controller comment, I did mention " ... many things about the Wii are uncharacteristically expensive ..." which was refering to the cost of the controllers. In the mindset of the consumer I don't think this is nearly the issue as the XBox 360 and PS3 controllers are because the Wiimote is "Shiny new technology" whereas the XBox 360 and PS3 controllers are essentially the same as the $30 wavebird, and the Nunchuck is optional; it doesn't matter if the reality is that the XBox and PS3 controllers are similarly technically advanced as the Wiimote in many ways or that you will need to buy at least one nunchuck if you want to play certain multiplayer games as long as the customers maintain these beliefs.

The online thing was mainly a mistake, I did mean $50 per year ... I do realize that it is free with the PS3 but the point was that people were being charged for what was once free.

Essentially, my point was directed at Sony and Microsoft mainly because they have pushed the price increase far further than Nintendo has; consider that at launch a PS2 and extra controller would have cost you $320 where it would cost you $310 on the Wii, and a XBox and 3 controllers would be $390 (they had $30 controllers) whereas the Wii would be $430 ( the PS3 for a similar setup would be $550/$60 or $650/$750 and the XBox 360 would be $350/$450 or $450/$550)

Edit: There are also things that Nintendo did correctly with the Wii to help minimize people's objections to the price, Wii Sports and Wii Play. By packaging the Wii with Wii Sports and selling Wii Play with a Wiimote Nintendo has essentially made the most common initial purchase Wii, Wii Sports+ Wii Play, 2 Wiimotes and 2 Nunchucks at $330 which people will see as being compariable to a $500 XBox 360 or $600+ PS3 bundle. Wii Sports and Wii Play may not be the best games (or largest) in the world but this doesn't prevent people from seeing extra value from their price.

Edit 2: Personally, I would have taken bundling to the next level, remade Punch Out in 2D and made a Wiimote/Nunchuck+Punch Out bundle for $75 and also produced a Nunchuck focused (puzzle) game and sold it with a Nunchuck for $30.