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

Forums - Sales Discussion - The Wii does not = , > the PS2,PS3,360 because they are NOT THE SAME!!

sc94597 on 26 March 2008
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

because the difference between the PS2 and Wii is similar to the difference between the Wii and the PS3.


Technicaly ? Saleswise ? No .


Technicaly. Yes. The wii is about 4-5 times more powerful than the ps2, and the ps3 is the same times more powerful than the wii.

I am going to post this again so I could get your attention. http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html


If your talking about theoretical power then maybe ( even though I'd still be doughtfull of the Wii being theoreticaly 4-5 time more powerfull the the PS2) in practice many Wii games have PS2 and in some cases sub ps2 graphics. Mainly 1st party titles exceed PS2 but not 4-5 times as much.


Well it's early in the Wii's life , and they still didn't push it. The gc was at least 1.5 times more powerful doing things like real time lighting, and shaders the ps2 couldn't do. The Wii has alot more pontential then what people are giving it. They judge it graphically based off it's worse games rather then it's best(for now). Everybody thought the gamecube was pushed it's first year too, but then re4,mp3,sfa,etc came. THe wii's ram has more bandwidth, less latency, and there is more of it. It's cache is 8 times the ps2,gc,xbox, and it's processor is about 3 times, by just comparing clock speed to the ps2. The gpu is capable of alot more than the ps2 , and gc, and slightly more so than the xbox. Let's also not for get how efficient the wii is compared to them. I could see alot of high end wii graphics comparable to low end 360 graphics(First Year) I'm not saying all btw. ONly some.

 

 

READ http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html

That's interesting but still beside the main point , my argument is that there is no point in a direct comparison as they are not direct competitors , wether the PS2 or Wii is similar or very different in graphical capability isn't a concern , a large % of The consumer doesn't understand peak theoretical capabilities , only what's before them and that's something slightly better than the PS2 ( at least in this moment in time) I'd go as far as to saying that Wii owners don't really care about gfx, at least not to the extent that PS3/360 owners do , only PSWii Wii60 owners are likely to care but they represent only part of the Wii userbase.

 


 If you are talking about the article. That is what proves you wrong. Nintendo is targetting EVERYBODY. They are using the blue ocean strategy, and disruption. They start on the bottom, casuals, to get a large userbase, then they increase to more , and more hardcore until they have games targeted to everyone. These are all game consoles so they all have the right to compete with eachother. 

If you are talking about what I said on graphical performance, I agree most wii owners don't care about graphics, but you said that you doubted the difference between the wii and ps2, was similar to the wii , and ps3, and I responded.  



Around the Network
Gnizmo on 26 March 2008
MontanaHatchet said:
Zucas said:
This topic is an epic fail. I reccomend all reading this to turn away before your eyes bleed. All I needed to read was Wii is not in the same market as PS3 and 360 to understand the failure.

Isn't that what Nintendo said though? That they're not competing on the same level as the others?

I know that was probably an excuse they could use if they failed, but still, hypocracy. 


The excuse of the systems being in a different market was always going to be used by the loser. Nintendo was just hedging their bets early due to the very large risk they were taking with the Wii. I personally never bought into it for a second, so I can't say it would be hypocritical of me to say they are in the same market. Of course Nintendo is a bunch of hypocrits but that is a given for any large corporation.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

ctk495 on 26 March 2008
sc94597 said:
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

because the difference between the PS2 and Wii is similar to the difference between the Wii and the PS3.


Technicaly ? Saleswise ? No .


Technicaly. Yes. The wii is about 4-5 times more powerful than the ps2, and the ps3 is the same times more powerful than the wii.

I am going to post this again so I could get your attention. http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html


If your talking about theoretical power then maybe ( even though I'd still be doughtfull of the Wii being theoreticaly 4-5 time more powerfull the the PS2) in practice many Wii games have PS2 and in some cases sub ps2 graphics. Mainly 1st party titles exceed PS2 but not 4-5 times as much.


Well it's early in the Wii's life , and they still didn't push it. The gc was at least 1.5 times more powerful doing things like real time lighting, and shaders the ps2 couldn't do. The Wii has alot more pontential then what people are giving it. They judge it graphically based off it's worse games rather then it's best(for now). Everybody thought the gamecube was pushed it's first year too, but then re4,mp3,sfa,etc came. THe wii's ram has more bandwidth, less latency, and there is more of it. It's cache is 8 times the ps2,gc,xbox, and it's processor is about 3 times, by just comparing clock speed to the ps2. The gpu is capable of alot more than the ps2 , and gc, and slightly more so than the xbox. Let's also not for get how efficient the wii is compared to them. I could see alot of high end wii graphics comparable to low end 360 graphics(First Year) I'm not saying all btw. ONly some.

 

 

READ http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html

That's interesting but still beside the main point , my argument is that there is no point in a direct comparison as they are not direct competitors , wether the PS2 or Wii is similar or very different in graphical capability isn't a concern , a large % of The consumer doesn't understand peak theoretical capabilities , only what's before them and that's something slightly better than the PS2 ( at least in this moment in time) I'd go as far as to saying that Wii owners don't really care about gfx, at least not to the extent that PS3/360 owners do , only PSWii Wii60 owners are likely to care but they represent only part of the Wii userbase.

 


 If you are talking about the article. That is what proves you wrong. Nintendo is targetting EVERYBODY. They are using the blue ocean strategy, and disruption. They start on the bottom, casuals, to get a large userbase, then they increase to more , and more hardcore until they have games targeted to everyone. These are all game consoles so they all have the right to compete with eachother. 

If you are talking about what I said on graphical performance, I agree most wii owners don't care about graphics, but you said that you doubted the difference between the wii and ps2, was similar to the wii , and ps3, and I responded.  


QFT.



sc94597 on 26 March 2008
Million said:
HappySqurriel said:
Million said:
totalwar23 said:
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

because the difference between the PS2 and Wii is similar to the difference between the Wii and the PS3.


Technicaly ? Saleswise ? No .


Technicaly. Yes. The wii is about 4-5 times more powerful than the ps2, and the ps3 is the same times more powerful than the wii.

I am going to post this again so I could get your attention. http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html


If your talking about theoretical power then maybe ( even though I'd still be doughtfull of the Wii being theoreticaly 4-5 time more powerfull the the PS2) in practice many Wii games have PS2 and in some cases sub ps2 graphics. Mainly 1st party titles exceed PS2 but not 4-5 times as much.


And you're complaining of people comparing the PS2 to the Wii? You're doing it yourself.


that's incredibly unfair , I was disproving some one who was clearly incorrect . I didn't start a thread about it.


Clearly incorrect?

The Gamecube was certainly more powerful than the PS2, and by some estimates was (at least) twice as powerful; the Wii is certainly more powerful than the Gamecube, and by some estimates is 2 to 4 times as powerful. This puts the Wii as being (at least) 3 to 4 times as powerful as the PS2 ... The XBox 360 and PS3 are (roughly) about 4 times as powerful as the Wii.

You're just as guilty as all the fanboys you complain about ...


  • I am not talking about theoretical power
  • the consumer does not care about theoretical power
  • theoretical power does not sell consoles
  • My dad didn't buy his ford because of it's theoretical power , he bought it because of what he saw it do in real life.
The Wii can be 8 million times more powerfull than the PS2 in theory , that doesn't make a slight different to my main point.

 And If a developer , is good enough they could make games 4-5 times better in graphical performance than the ps2. So the only way we should compare is theoretical power , because these games aren't pushing the limits. This also prooves it's not nintendos fault for  the bad graphics rather the developers who CHOOSE not to give their games good graphics. People who say the wii is last gen don't know what they are talking about , because it's a big improvement over last gen. 



Gnizmo on 26 March 2008
Million said:

  • I am not talking about theoretical power
  • the consumer does not care about theoretical power
  • theoretical power does not sell consoles
  • My  dad didn't buy  his ford because of it's theoretical power , he bought it because of what he saw it do  in  real life.
The Wii can be 8 million times more powerfull than the PS2 in theory , that doesn't make a slight different to my main point.

Smash Brothers Brawl says hi! The game is so gorgeous there are still fanboys that claim in-game screen shots could not possibly be done on the Wii. I do find your second point really interesting though. The increase in theoretical power was all the PS3 fans were boasting about for the first year or so before PS3 games actually started to look better than 360 games. I guarantee you that theoretical power sold some PS3s early on.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
Million on 26 March 2008
sc94597 said:
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

because the difference between the PS2 and Wii is similar to the difference between the Wii and the PS3.


Technicaly ? Saleswise ? No .


Technicaly. Yes. The wii is about 4-5 times more powerful than the ps2, and the ps3 is the same times more powerful than the wii.

I am going to post this again so I could get your attention. http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html


If your talking about theoretical power then maybe ( even though I'd still be doughtfull of the Wii being theoreticaly 4-5 time more powerfull the the PS2) in practice many Wii games have PS2 and in some cases sub ps2 graphics. Mainly 1st party titles exceed PS2 but not 4-5 times as much.


Well it's early in the Wii's life , and they still didn't push it. The gc was at least 1.5 times more powerful doing things like real time lighting, and shaders the ps2 couldn't do. The Wii has alot more pontential then what people are giving it. They judge it graphically based off it's worse games rather then it's best(for now). Everybody thought the gamecube was pushed it's first year too, but then re4,mp3,sfa,etc came. THe wii's ram has more bandwidth, less latency, and there is more of it. It's cache is 8 times the ps2,gc,xbox, and it's processor is about 3 times, by just comparing clock speed to the ps2. The gpu is capable of alot more than the ps2 , and gc, and slightly more so than the xbox. Let's also not for get how efficient the wii is compared to them. I could see alot of high end wii graphics comparable to low end 360 graphics(First Year) I'm not saying all btw. ONly some.

 

 

READ http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html

That's interesting but still beside the main point , my argument is that there is no point in a direct comparison as they are not direct competitors , wether the PS2 or Wii is similar or very different in graphical capability isn't a concern , a large % of The consumer doesn't understand peak theoretical capabilities , only what's before them and that's something slightly better than the PS2 ( at least in this moment in time) I'd go as far as to saying that Wii owners don't really care about gfx, at least not to the extent that PS3/360 owners do , only PSWii Wii60 owners are likely to care but they represent only part of the Wii userbase.

 


If you are talking about the article. That is what proves you wrong. Nintendo is targetting EVERYBODY. They are using the blue ocean strategy, and disruption. They start on the bottom, casuals, to get a large userbase, then they increase to more , and more hardcore until they have games targeted to everyone. These are all game consoles so they all have the right to compete with eachother.

If you are talking about what I said on graphical performance, I agree most wii owners don't care about graphics, but you said that you doubted the difference between the wii and ps2, was similar to the wii , and ps3, and I responded.


I stil ldought the difference betwen the Wii and PS2 is similar to Wii and PS3 but I may have confused myself into saying that was on a technical basis , it's not , sorry.

Nintnedo targeting everybody doesn't put them in the same market as PS3, 360 . Ford Target everyone , Apple target everyone it's how mass market orientated business work but I still wouldn't compare Ford and Ferrari in the same market simply because Ford sell to everyone.

 BTW This debate has actualy been very interesting , and i'm glad that It's been on the most part very mature and intelligent discussion.




HappySqurriel on 26 March 2008
Million said:
 
 That's interesting but still beside the main point , my argument is that there is no point in a direct comparison as they are not direct competitors , wether the PS2 or Wii is similar or very different in graphical capability isn't a concern , a large % of The consumer doesn't understand peak theoretical capabilities , only what's before them and that's something slightly better than the PS2 ( at least in this moment in time)  I'd go as far as to saying that Wii owners don't really care about gfx, at least not to the extent that PS3/360 owners do , only PSWii Wii60 owners are likely to care but they represent only part of the Wii userbase.
  

 


A large portion of the direct comparisons are not "man can the Wii produce 1 teraflop?" and are more "Can the Wii have a similarly large (and dense) city like Grand Theft Auto 4?" ... In other words they're far more practical discussions and far less theoritical. In most cases the answer is "Probably" or "At least in some form" at which point a Sony fan (*cough* MikeB *cough*) takes the practical discussion and decides to rant about how the Cell Processor is 20 times faster than a 4 year old G4 processor when doing a fast fourier transform ...



Million on 26 March 2008

 Sony fan (*cough* MikeB *cough*) takes the practical discussion and decides to rant about how the Cell Processor is 20 times faster than a 4 year old G4 processor when doing a fast fourier transform ...


 that made me lol for some reason , I'll come back after college and debate some more if the mods haven't locked this thread lol.




sc94597 on 26 March 2008
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

because the difference between the PS2 and Wii is similar to the difference between the Wii and the PS3.


Technicaly ? Saleswise ? No .


Technicaly. Yes. The wii is about 4-5 times more powerful than the ps2, and the ps3 is the same times more powerful than the wii.

I am going to post this again so I could get your attention. http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html


If your talking about theoretical power then maybe ( even though I'd still be doughtfull of the Wii being theoreticaly 4-5 time more powerfull the the PS2) in practice many Wii games have PS2 and in some cases sub ps2 graphics. Mainly 1st party titles exceed PS2 but not 4-5 times as much.


Well it's early in the Wii's life , and they still didn't push it. The gc was at least 1.5 times more powerful doing things like real time lighting, and shaders the ps2 couldn't do. The Wii has alot more pontential then what people are giving it. They judge it graphically based off it's worse games rather then it's best(for now). Everybody thought the gamecube was pushed it's first year too, but then re4,mp3,sfa,etc came. THe wii's ram has more bandwidth, less latency, and there is more of it. It's cache is 8 times the ps2,gc,xbox, and it's processor is about 3 times, by just comparing clock speed to the ps2. The gpu is capable of alot more than the ps2 , and gc, and slightly more so than the xbox. Let's also not for get how efficient the wii is compared to them. I could see alot of high end wii graphics comparable to low end 360 graphics(First Year) I'm not saying all btw. ONly some.

 

 

READ http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html

That's interesting but still beside the main point , my argument is that there is no point in a direct comparison as they are not direct competitors , wether the PS2 or Wii is similar or very different in graphical capability isn't a concern , a large % of The consumer doesn't understand peak theoretical capabilities , only what's before them and that's something slightly better than the PS2 ( at least in this moment in time) I'd go as far as to saying that Wii owners don't really care about gfx, at least not to the extent that PS3/360 owners do , only PSWii Wii60 owners are likely to care but they represent only part of the Wii userbase.

 


If you are talking about the article. That is what proves you wrong. Nintendo is targetting EVERYBODY. They are using the blue ocean strategy, and disruption. They start on the bottom, casuals, to get a large userbase, then they increase to more , and more hardcore until they have games targeted to everyone. These are all game consoles so they all have the right to compete with eachother.

If you are talking about what I said on graphical performance, I agree most wii owners don't care about graphics, but you said that you doubted the difference between the wii and ps2, was similar to the wii , and ps3, and I responded.


I stil  I  doubt the difference betwen the Wii and PS2 is similar to Wii and PS3 but I may have confused myself into saying that was on a technical basis , it's not , sorry.

Nintnedo targeting everybody doesn't put them in the same market as PS3, 360 . Ford Target everyone , Apple target everyone it's how mass market orientated business work but I still wouldn't compare Ford and Ferrari in the same market simply because Ford sell to everyone.

BTW This debate has actualy been very interesting , and i'm glad that It's been on the most part very mature and intelligent discussion.


 First of all I want to fix this. I already gave you proof that the wii is at least 4-5 times more powerful than the ps2. Look at my second post in this thread. GO over it, and you would see the difference. ALso by being targeted to everyone it is also targeted toward the hardcore , which the ps3, and 360 target. So that makes them target the same audience meaning they should be compared. 



totalwar23 on 26 March 2008
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
sc94597 said:
Million said:
HappySqurriel said:

 

because the difference between the PS2 and Wii is similar to the difference between the Wii and the PS3.


Technicaly ? Saleswise ? No .


Technicaly. Yes. The wii is about 4-5 times more powerful than the ps2, and the ps3 is the same times more powerful than the wii.

I am going to post this again so I could get your attention. http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html


If your talking about theoretical power then maybe ( even though I'd still be doughtfull of the Wii being theoreticaly 4-5 time more powerfull the the PS2) in practice many Wii games have PS2 and in some cases sub ps2 graphics. Mainly 1st party titles exceed PS2 but not 4-5 times as much.


Well it's early in the Wii's life , and they still didn't push it. The gc was at least 1.5 times more powerful doing things like real time lighting, and shaders the ps2 couldn't do. The Wii has alot more pontential then what people are giving it. They judge it graphically based off it's worse games rather then it's best(for now). Everybody thought the gamecube was pushed it's first year too, but then re4,mp3,sfa,etc came. THe wii's ram has more bandwidth, less latency, and there is more of it. It's cache is 8 times the ps2,gc,xbox, and it's processor is about 3 times, by just comparing clock speed to the ps2. The gpu is capable of alot more than the ps2 , and gc, and slightly more so than the xbox. Let's also not for get how efficient the wii is compared to them. I could see alot of high end wii graphics comparable to low end 360 graphics(First Year) I'm not saying all btw. ONly some.

 

 

READ http://malstrom.50webs.com/birdman.html

That's interesting but still beside the main point , my argument is that there is no point in a direct comparison as they are not direct competitors , wether the PS2 or Wii is similar or very different in graphical capability isn't a concern , a large % of The consumer doesn't understand peak theoretical capabilities , only what's before them and that's something slightly better than the PS2 ( at least in this moment in time) I'd go as far as to saying that Wii owners don't really care about gfx, at least not to the extent that PS3/360 owners do , only PSWii Wii60 owners are likely to care but they represent only part of the Wii userbase.

 


If you are talking about the article. That is what proves you wrong. Nintendo is targetting EVERYBODY. They are using the blue ocean strategy, and disruption. They start on the bottom, casuals, to get a large userbase, then they increase to more , and more hardcore until they have games targeted to everyone. These are all game consoles so they all have the right to compete with eachother.

If you are talking about what I said on graphical performance, I agree most wii owners don't care about graphics, but you said that you doubted the difference between the wii and ps2, was similar to the wii , and ps3, and I responded.


I stil ldought the difference betwen the Wii and PS2 is similar to Wii and PS3 but I may have confused myself into saying that was on a technical basis , it's not , sorry.

Nintnedo targeting everybody doesn't put them in the same market as PS3, 360 . Ford Target everyone , Apple target everyone it's how mass market orientated business work but I still wouldn't compare Ford and Ferrari in the same market simply because Ford sell to everyone.


What the hell are you talking about? Does Ford only make one type of automobile targetting everyone from poor to rich class? No, they make a variety of models, same with Ferrari. Both Sony and Nintendo target the same group, everyone and anyone who can use their products. When in the hell did people get the idea that Sony was out to target the elite  media lovingh techphiles only? Did they do that with the PS2? You think Sony is happy that the mass market aren't buying their consoles as much as the Wii?