STRYKIE said:
1) It seems you're confusing the word "incompetence" with arrogance. I think a decade of unprecented market share would send the most modest CEO's head up their own ass. Everything else wasn't much different (if any) from the PS2, and nobody was crying foul about "booooo, PS2 is just a movie player, wheres da gaemz?!". Were Nintendo "incompetent" circa SNES launch? 2) That's strange considering the Wii was retailed far above it's manufacturing cost more so than any other system this gen, and the UI was littered with non-gaming channels, seriously, there hasn't been a PURE gaming system since the Gamecube, and nobody who had the PS2, Xbox and GC considered the GC the best of the three under any criteria thinkable. Whatever point you're trying to make about Xbox having non-gaming features literally made no sense. The 360's non-gaming features are on all three 7th gen systems, and the Xbone supposedly only catering towards being a cable box arguably has the strongest launch-line up between the next gen systems. 3) Again, what's with this ADHD-eqsue obsession you have about throwing the PS3 and 360 into the same lump? And what is this "sub-HD" term you've coined into some monkier that should be frowned upon? Because the Wii certainly wasn't doing any better, even with the aid of component cables for the most part. It's essentially just a label that's been masqueraded since the 80s, remember the launch model Sega Genesis and it's cutting edge 240p "High Definition Graphics"? And if being responsible for one of the industry's top 5 best selling home consoles ever created amongst 2 co-existing fierce competitors in it's 40 year history is the accolade of a loser, then fuck me sideways and get me right on board. 4) Right, except several of the Wii's top 10 highest selling games' successors haven't garnered much interest for the Wii or Wii U, and with no 3rd party support to fall back on, on top of staff who are reltaively inexperienced in the field of the industry standards that were established by the PS3 and 360 (and even the PS2 and original Xbox to some extent), has left Nintendo in a lose/lose situation.
Just for clarity's sake, I think the 360 has been a vastly overrated system since 2008 onwards, and no, "non gaming channels" haven't deterred my experience on the Wii, I still think the system was worth it just for SMG1 and 2 alone, and overall still has a very strong case for being the winner of the 7th gen. But your personal reasoning behind the Wii having the edge is mindblowingly childish with no grasp of the metagame behind each of the three systems. Childish isn't particularly the word I'd like to use, but your argument, in a nutshell basically is: "Nintendo makes real gaming systems without non-gaming bullshit, Sony and MS are losers and just make sub-HD cable box and Blu-ray player." |
1) No I am not! Sony was incompetent. If you can't deal with that fact then so be it. The PS3 is the exact definition of incompetence. Arrogance is one thing but messing up your product is another. The rest of your bantering is useless.
2) Despite the fact that consoles have non gaming features I would prefer it if they didn't use it as some selling point. The GC had low quality games compared to the PS2 and xbox and thus it went out to flop. The xbox one is catering to the crowds with cable boxes plus that's what microsoft is touting as the selling point! Launch line-ups mean little in the long run. The only console that I can think of that had a good launch was the WII.
3) The WII certainly didn't have better hardware but it sure as hell had the better games. Plus the reason I call them "sub hd twins" has to do with the fact that their watered down PCs.
4) Again your missing my point! The WII proved that it didn't need third party to thrive! Nintendo went on a lose-lose situation because nintendo was dumb enough to decide to directly compete with the sub hd twins.
It was for that generation because nintendo didn't sell their consoles on non gaming features! There are other reasons as to why the WII won but this is one of them included.
| JayWood2010 said: Im not going to include sources as i am busy at the moment so im going to go through a quick conclusion of each and then show my analysis. |
Excellent post, except the gamers didn't win. While it was indeed a grand generation of gaming on various consoles and brought excellent software, it opened a pandora's box in terms of graphics, which bludgeoned up development costs, which kills off mid level companies and creativity. While there is some hope thanks to digital sales and indies, we are on a path that will probably lead to many problems PC gamers experienced many years ago when it became less about the game and more about selling engines, brand names with annual releases with little in quallity alternatives from major companies or hooking you into paying fees on top of game purchases.
This last generation only made losers of us all.
As a gamer: wii (Zelda beats everything)
As a company: wii
Menx64
3DS code: 1289-8222-7215
NNid: Menx064
Why is hard to some people to say: Wii was the winner. The End. Is not a opinion, is a fact.
Like PS2 did in past gen. There is no doubt.
I would've said Wii, but they ended the generation with a sour taste and it has reflected on the Wii U. They did phenomenally well but the lack of HD did come back to haunt them and give them a reputation of being "casual". I think if they supported HD (even if it was weaker compared to 360/PS3), they would've dominated the market. Their decision ultimately stopped their momentum (unlike PS3 and 360) and now they have to win that back.
From that perspective I'd say the 360 even though the PS3 has built the most momentum this generation but their piss poor decisions at launch gave 360 the chance to dominate the US adn UK markets which ultimately edges them out (let's face it they were never going to do anything in Japan which makes the PS3 look more successful worldwide).
platformmaster918 said:
that's why I'm saying PS3 won't reach 33% in legacy. That much is obvious with a longer gen and better PS4 start, BUT PS3 is more expensive than PS2 was at this point in its life cycle and therefore has more mass market prices to reach to give itself boosts. |
I see your point, but I think your idea is a stretch. I don't think there's gonna be any significant bump with further price cuts. It's gonna sell, but 20 million seems just way too much.
Let's see.
| kopstudent89 said: I would've said Wii, but they ended the generation with a sour taste and it has reflected on the Wii U. They did phenomenally well but the lack of HD did come back to haunt them and give them a reputation of being "casual". I think if they supported HD (even if it was weaker compared to 360/PS3), they would've dominated the market. Their decision ultimately stopped their momentum (unlike PS3 and 360) and now they have to win that back. From that perspective I'd say the 360 even though the PS3 has built the most momentum this generation but their piss poor decisions at launch gave 360 the chance to dominate the US adn UK markets which ultimately edges them out (let's face it they were never going to do anything in Japan which makes the PS3 look more successful worldwide). |
Totally agree.
| kopstudent89 said: I would've said Wii, but they ended the generation with a sour taste and it has reflected on the Wii U. They did phenomenally well but the lack of HD did come back to haunt them and give them a reputation of being "casual". I think if they supported HD (even if it was weaker compared to 360/PS3), they would've dominated the market. Their decision ultimately stopped their momentum (unlike PS3 and 360) and now they have to win that back. From that perspective I'd say the 360 even though the PS3 has built the most momentum this generation but their piss poor decisions at launch gave 360 the chance to dominate the US and UK markets which ultimately edges them out (let's face it they were never going to do anything in Japan which makes the PS3 look more successful worldwide). |
RolStoppable said:
The Wii definitely won, but since Nintendo abandoned the console prematurely and went on to make the disastrous Wii U, they aren't really a winner in the end. As a result, the Wii's potential was never fully realized. The lack of worthwhile third party support plays into this too, that's why gamers didn't win. Which was a separate point in my post; why gamers lost, not Nintendo. I mentioned the blockbuster model on the same note as well. Why should gamers care about the current trajectory being sustained when it narrows down what gaming could be? |
They may not really be a winner but compared to sony and microsofts strategy in the beginning nintendo had the least worst of them.
Was third party ever necessary for the wii to succeed ? Think about that for a moment. Alot of the highest selling games on the wii was nintendo themselves. The gamers may have lost but that was their decision to not go on other consoles.
Gamers don't really care whether or not to sustain the gaming industry. What they care most about are the games and alot of famous AAA titles do the job as expected and then you have uncontested hits like minecraft and wii sports. I think your a little bit too involved with the hardcore to make any judgement about what's bad and what's good. 
Why hate on the blockbuster AAA games when it's what gamers want ? The same applies to disruptive low budgeted titles as well. Gaming is going in a strange direction I haven't seen before. Gaming isn't being narrowed down per se but it's being expanded in other markets like mobile games or the so called "casual" online games on facebook.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
