Fine then, Einstein. What do YOU think Nintendo's next console will do?

better not call anybody names,you could get banned

I personally think something like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQZ1MSG5v3g would be awesome for gaming in the future,

i got what you had in mind a long time ago,i don't need a video for it.

fthe projector will cost a bomb,after that a good projector with brightness will cost even more.

and the prosessing power needed will be enormous

all this can't be packed in NINTENDO's small prices

but I guess you just have no imagination so naturally you would think it's dumb :P

anybody can imagin anything but it doesn't become a reality if we want 

i could imaging HOLGOGRAPHIC,VIRTUAL REALITY, but that isn't gonna happen 

you are just whinning like a little boy here who asks mommy why can't i buy that expensive toy

yo really think NINTENDO will just bring a $2000 TECH and everybody will buy.

I think something like this would be a logical next step for Nintendo, as it would allow games to be played in different ways, and allow for greater portability. You could project it on the wall, on a surface, or plug it in a TV the traditional way. Miyamoto even said he would like to remove the barrier of TVs for gaming. Well what better way to do that than this?

and you really just picked out the meaning out of Miyamoto;s comments..........WOW

the TV barrier will go by not so fast and also projector don't provide the same qaulity

By the way, if you're going to make counterpoints to EVERYTHING I say, try coming up with something intelligent and insightful to say, all I'm seeing is little more than "lol no ur wrong!!1" or "no that's a bad idea!!!"

so you are being intelligent here by dreaming and whishing that all this expensive stugg not even refined will just come into NINTENDO's small price

Metallicube said:

You can't possibily believe that..

so you think Wii would be in the same place and PS3 would still have been last  if PS3 was priced $249....................lmao

Yes, I honestly do. PS3 simply does not have many games that appeal to a wide audience. You could price the PS3 for $50, but if the games don't appeal to many people, it simply will not do well.

First of all, the terms "hardcore" and "casual" are stupid useless branding created by the industry to attempt to explain the Wii's success and make nerds feel cool for playing games so much.

no its not.hardcore are serious gamers which follow gaming contunously and casuals that just jop on to enjoy when something popular and COOL comes in

don't you even know english.do you feel insecure that you might not be a hardcore but a casual gamer.

Lol ok pal, I have been gaming since probably before you were even concieved. I bet you weren't even alive for the NES days. Keep believing the BS propaganda the industry spews out.

Hardcore and casual terms are bs because they are vague terms and the meaning of them constantly changes. Madden and GTA, Mario Bros, Zelda, and Tetris were all once considered "casual." I personally think if there is any type of game that could be considered "casual", it's those extremely linear games that focus more on cut scenes than gameplay, like FFXIII, Uncharted, MGS, Heavy Rain, etc..

Nintendo "getting hardcore." What does that even mean??

it means Nintendo catering and making games for hardcore gamers

And they haven't been doing that now? What do you call Mario Galaxy, Monster Hunter Tri, Zelda TP, Metroid Prime 3, Smash Bros Brawl, Donkey Kong Country, Kirby, Goldeneye, Fire Emblem, NSMB Wii, RE4, Mario Kart Wii, Wario Land, and a slew of others?

Second, the Wii got its success because it appealed to new and oldschool gamers,

only because PS3 sold expensive.if PS3 would have released at $249 the new and casual gamers wouldn't have even got on-board as Wii would have been overshadowed like the Gamecube.

PS2 had many casuals on-borad 

Again, you're just wrong, and I'm quite frankly dumbfounded that you actually believe this. PS3 may have gotten a bit more sales with a $249 price tag, but it's GAMES that sell consoles, and PS3 simply does not have games that appeal to the expanded audience, just an ever shrinking niche of core gamers.

what the hell do you mean by oldschool gamers?

What do you think I mean? Gamers who use to game but no longer do, because modern games do not appeal to them. And believe me, there are tons of them out there. This is what a game like NSMB Wii appeals to. Where do you think the 15 million sales are coming from for this game? Casual gamers? I have beaten the game and it can get EXTREMELY hard, way too hard for many "casual" gamers.

something Sony and MS do not know how to do,which is why their console have less sales,

do you even know what influences the sales?

Yes I do, but clearly you don't. Price and brand name are very minor factors, yet you somehow think they are the MAJOR factors..

even now when their prices are so close to the Wii. You can now buy an Xbox 360 for LESS than a Wii, yet still the Wii outsells it.. Why is this?

PS3 is nowhere near close to Wii price and now PS brand has been damaged

for XBOX,it never had a big brand so why would it sell more.

do you even know what you're talking about means?

PS3's price IS close to Wii. And regardless as to whether or not Xbox had a bring brand name, it is still very similar to the PS3, so my point stands.

Because most old people, little girls, and soccer moms would probably rather play Wii Sports or Wii Fit

most of those people wouldn't even know Wii if it didn't get attention and wasn't popular

PS3 being expensive brought attention to the Wii

Wii was the thing to get and COOL which the people you mentioned above run behind

So which is it? Is it because the Wii is the "cool" thing to get, or because it is cheaper than PS3? Your lack of consistancy is throwing me off.. Nobody just runs out and spends $200-$250 just because something is "cool." There are obviously games on it that appeal to those people, games the PS3 does not have.

than MGS, COD, or Heavy Rain.The expanded audience, including oldschool and non gamers, do not want to play over the top violent games with endless cutscenes and complex controls.

PS3 if lower price would have gotten causal games like PS2

Yeah, because every soccer mom was clamoring to play MGS, Uncharted, GTA4, COD, and Heavy Rain.. but once they found the Wii cheaper, they decided to go for that instead... Do you hear yourself?

 If price is such a big factor, Gamecube would have been been the market leader,as it was cheaper than the competition.

YEAH but Nintendo didn't have the brand name which PLAYSTATION did when PS3 launched

Again, brand name means very little in the grand scheme of things. I think consoles like the N64, PS3, and Wii prove that.

If all Sony had to do to remain market leader was release their console at $249, why didn't they just DO that??

cause they wanted to push blu-ray which will bring royalties to them

are you a baby that you don't understand these things,do you even follow gaming?its like you know nothing.you are asking question that are common knowledge

Ok, so basically you're saying that Sony PURPOSELY conceded 1st place just to push blu ray? Lol ok... You really have no idea what you are talking about.. What are you, 8 years old? Price has VERY LITTLE to do with Wii's success. Anyone who even remotely knows their gaming history knows this. It is clear to me now, if you aren't 8 years old, you are simply in denial.

Price has little to do with the Wii success.

so the biggest brand PLAYSTATION would have just gone down even at $249..............lol

Things change, buddy.. Gaming tastes change. Even the mighty Roman Empire eventually fell. Sony became too focused on cutting edge technology and cinematic gameplay, which is why their sales dwindled. They were overshooting the market, and losing fans. If brand name was so important, the Playstation brand never would have become market leader, because Nintendo was already leading with SNES.

Blue Ocean strategy and Disruption have EVERYTHING to do with its success, which you clearly have not heard of, or refuse to believe it.

that strategy doesn't work when you don't have a good brand name  and the other competitor is no loser

Again, you have no idea what your talking about, so this doesn't deserve any more of a response. Brand name has NOTHING to do with it.