By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Wii U VS 4BONE graphics

Kane1389 on 16 September 2013
Zero999 said:
Kane1389 said:
Zero999 said:

No, the main thing that it does is boost PRICE. there's a point where increasing specs won't translate into better support/sales, it's a design thing to know what that point is and nintendo made the right choice.

What are you even arguing about here? That more powerfull hardware isn't an advantige and it wont attract more customers? 

If more power was an advantage and atracted more customers, the more powerfull machines wouldn't be in last place every gen. I don't see it magically changing now.

LMAO! What the fuck?

First off, most powerfull systems weren't last every gen. In fact, only Xbox was. SNES was most powerfull and won.

And why are you acting as if more power somehow contributed to their ''failure''. More power is always a good thing, regardless of other aspects of the system .



Around the Network
Kane1389 on 16 September 2013
JoeTheBro said:
Kane1389 said:
F0X said:


Customers have convinced Nintendo otherwise.


How so?


I think he's pinning the failure and semi-failure of the GameCube and N64 on them having good graphics.

I see his point, its not like GameCube dropped to 99$ few years into its cycle...oh wait, it did



cheesecake on 16 September 2013
Kane1389 said:
Zero999 said:
Kane1389 said:
Zero999 said:

No, the main thing that it does is boost PRICE. there's a point where increasing specs won't translate into better support/sales, it's a design thing to know what that point is and nintendo made the right choice.

What are you even arguing about here? That more powerfull hardware isn't an advantige and it wont attract more customers? 

If more power was an advantage and atracted more customers, the more powerfull machines wouldn't be in last place every gen. I don't see it magically changing now.

LMAO! What the fuck?

First off, most powerfull systems weren't last every gen. In fact, only Xbox was. SNES was most powerfull and won.

And why are you acting as if more power somehow contributed to their ''failure''. More power is always a good thing, regardless of other aspects of the system .

SNES wasn't most powerful....
anyways, i think the correct argument is that the most powerful console never won a generation.

NES,SNES,PSX,PS2,Wii weren't the most powerful of their respective generations, yet they sold the most.



Cheebee on 16 September 2013
cheesecake said:
Kane1389 said:

LMAO! What the fuck?

First off, most powerfull systems weren't last every gen. In fact, only Xbox was. SNES was most powerfull and won.

And why are you acting as if more power somehow contributed to their ''failure''. More power is always a good thing, regardless of other aspects of the system .

SNES wasn't most powerful....
anyways, i think the correct argument is that the most powerful console never won a generation.

NES,SNES,PSX,PS2,Wii weren't the most powerful of their respective generations, yet they sold the most.

Indeed, and don't forget about the handhelds.



Nintendo Network ID: Cheebee   3DS Code: 2320 - 6113 - 9046

 

cheesecake on 16 September 2013
Cheebee said:
cheesecake said:
Kane1389 said:

LMAO! What the fuck?

First off, most powerfull systems weren't last every gen. In fact, only Xbox was. SNES was most powerfull and won.

And why are you acting as if more power somehow contributed to their ''failure''. More power is always a good thing, regardless of other aspects of the system .

SNES wasn't most powerful....
anyways, i think the correct argument is that the most powerful console never won a generation.

NES,SNES,PSX,PS2,Wii weren't the most powerful of their respective generations, yet they sold the most.

Indeed, and don't forget about the handhelds.

yeah.

Atari Lynx and GameGear blew Gameboy/Colour away in graphics, but Gameboy blew away them in games and sales.

PSP had better graphics than GBA/DS, but the GBA beat it by a small margin while the DS blew it away in sales, and both had amazing games.

PSVita is supposed to have PS3 graphics while the 3DS has Wii/superior graphics. 3DS is murdering the Vita right now in games and sales.



Around the Network
Kane1389 on 16 September 2013
cheesecake said:
Kane1389 said:
Zero999 said:
Kane1389 said:
Zero999 said:

No, the main thing that it does is boost PRICE. there's a point where increasing specs won't translate into better support/sales, it's a design thing to know what that point is and nintendo made the right choice.

What are you even arguing about here? That more powerfull hardware isn't an advantige and it wont attract more customers? 

If more power was an advantage and atracted more customers, the more powerfull machines wouldn't be in last place every gen. I don't see it magically changing now.

LMAO! What the fuck?

First off, most powerfull systems weren't last every gen. In fact, only Xbox was. SNES was most powerfull and won.

And why are you acting as if more power somehow contributed to their ''failure''. More power is always a good thing, regardless of other aspects of the system .

SNES wasn't most powerful....
anyways, i think the correct argument is that the most powerful console never won a generation.

NES,SNES,PSX,PS2,Wii weren't the most powerful of their respective generations, yet they sold the most.


SNES actually was more powerfull than Genesis

And that wasnt the argument i discussing



Salnax on 16 September 2013
Kane1389 said:
cheesecake said:
Kane1389 said:

LMAO! What the fuck?

First off, most powerfull systems weren't last every gen. In fact, only Xbox was. SNES was most powerfull and won.

And why are you acting as if more power somehow contributed to their ''failure''. More power is always a good thing, regardless of other aspects of the system .

SNES wasn't most powerful....
anyways, i think the correct argument is that the most powerful console never won a generation.

NES,SNES,PSX,PS2,Wii weren't the most powerful of their respective generations, yet they sold the most.


SNES actually was more powerfull than Genesis

And that wasnt the argument i discussing


There were more than two consoles in the early 90's. You had the Neo Geo, which was far beyond the SNES in both power and price, not to mention the 3DO and Jaguar. And even if you only consider SNES vs Genesis, the SNES was more powerful but was slower (hence blast processing's origins).



My friend is a Vtuber, check him out.

Kane1389 on 16 September 2013
Salnax said:
Kane1389 said:
cheesecake said:
Kane1389 said:
 

LMAO! What the fuck?

First off, most powerfull systems weren't last every gen. In fact, only Xbox was. SNES was most powerfull and won.

And why are you acting as if more power somehow contributed to their ''failure''. More power is always a good thing, regardless of other aspects of the system .

SNES wasn't most powerful....
anyways, i think the correct argument is that the most powerful console never won a generation.

NES,SNES,PSX,PS2,Wii weren't the most powerful of their respective generations, yet they sold the most.


SNES actually was more powerfull than Genesis

And that wasnt the argument i discussing


There were more than two consoles in the early 90's. You had the Neo Geo, which was far beyond the SNES in both power and price, not to mention the 3DO and Jaguar. And even if you only consider SNES vs Genesis, the SNES was more powerful but was slower (hence blast processing's origins).


3D0 and Jaguar belonged more in PS1 era. Dont know about Neo Geo tho



Zero999 on 16 September 2013
Kane1389 said:
Zero999 said:

If more power was an advantage and atracted more customers, the more powerfull machines wouldn't be in last place every gen. I don't see it magically changing now.

LMAO! What the fuck?

First off, most powerfull systems weren't last every gen. In fact, only Xbox was. SNES was most powerfull and won.

And why are you acting as if more power somehow contributed to their ''failure''. More power is always a good thing, regardless of other aspects of the system .

more power certainly never directly contributed to success, only increasing price (wich is kind of a contributor to failure).



Kane1389 on 16 September 2013
Zero999 said:
Kane1389 said:
Zero999 said:

If more power was an advantage and atracted more customers, the more powerfull machines wouldn't be in last place every gen. I don't see it magically changing now.

LMAO! What the fuck?

First off, most powerfull systems weren't last every gen. In fact, only Xbox was. SNES was most powerfull and won.

And why are you acting as if more power somehow contributed to their ''failure''. More power is always a good thing, regardless of other aspects of the system .

more power certainly never directly contributed to success, only increasing price (wich is kind of a contributor to failure).

It contributed to attracting more customers, for more or less