Forums - Sales Discussion - Nintendo's Ability to Move On

Wow... I just did the full math on my computer for that image... Either I'm retarded. or that looks like... well... I cant tell what it looks like... the crosshair is 10 inches tall... (in metroid prime... I was going to make a joke and take a screenshot of the beasts face, and make it a big picture... to caputre his whole face, it would end up being a 200k JPEG. My dimentions I strected the itty bitty SDTV resolution up to... 19,200. (hey, all I did was make the picture REALLY REALLY big... and well.. I'm impress how bad it looks. (the PS3 would look really bad too though. so I have trouble bashing the Wii on this point... just dont say how good it looks on your projector. The PS3 will look 10x better on a projector. But I dont feel like useing a extreme that favors the PS3 over the Wii... that is like saying... the NES sucks because it looks bad on a 5inch screen by todays games standards.



PSN ID: Kwaad


I fly this flag in victory!

Around the Network

Kwaad...that's the stupidest thing ever... First off...everything looks crappy on a projector...but you're not even thinking about the fact that you wouldn't be sitting as close to a projector as you would your monitor... "The PS3 will look 10x better on a projector." ? Congrats...the PS3 looks 10x better on a TV too. We all know this. Give it a rest. If a PS3 looks better than the Wii on a TV...I don't think the Wii will look better than the PS3 on a projector. Ugh. Too much Wii-bashing from one person...how do you do it?



LEFT4DEAD411.COM
Bet with disolitude: Left4Dead will have a higher Metacritic rating than Project Origin, 3 months after the second game's release.  (hasn't been 3 months but it looks like I won :-p )

So, $600 or $400 for a console that lasts 10 years or $250 three times for consoles that last 3 years each? $600 (PS3) or $400 (360) compared to $750 Wii, Wii 2.0, Wii 3.0? I would rather buy one console and play a lot of great games on it and have it last a bunch of years. Would you buy a $10,000 car, and four years later buy another one for $10,000, sell the first one for $4,000, buy another car four years later for $10,000, sell the second one for $4,000, etc. I would rather buy one car for $20,000 or $25,000 than buy three cars for $30,000 total. How about a TV? Three black and white ones or a color one? Three color ones or an HD one? ETC.!!!!!!



A lot of gamers would think that they got screwed, because the PS3 and 360 won't have a next one for five, six, or seven years, while they will be nearing their third Nintendo console. Nintendo can do this for handhelds, because the cost of handhelds decreases a lot more than home consoles, as the parts are generally cheaper, and Nintendo makes their first one a little crappier than the next version, or finds a way to make it a little better.



AmishGramish said: So, $600 or $400 for a console that lasts 10 years or $250 three times for consoles that last 3 years each? $600 (PS3) or $400 (360) compared to $750 Wii, Wii 2.0, Wii 3.0? I would rather buy one console and play a lot of great games on it and have it last a bunch of years. Would you buy a $10,000 car, and four years later buy another one for $10,000, sell the first one for $4,000, buy another car four years later for $10,000, sell the second one for $4,000, etc. I would rather buy one car for $20,000 or $25,000 than buy three cars for $30,000 total. How about a TV? Three black and white ones or a color one? Three color ones or an HD one? ETC.!!!!!!
You're kidding yourself if you think the PS3 and especially the 360 will still be in the game in 2016. Technology is moving way faster than before...it won't be big for 10 years. And if another Wii was made, it wouldn't be for at least a few years...wouldn't you suspect that in a few years, the PS3 might come out with some optimized version? A more compact version with extra features perhaps? I don't think you would complain, you would just say, "Neat! A new, slimmer version!" What's wrong with a new version of the Wii? And we're not talking about buying a car...we're talking about playing videogames...goodness. Sometimes I think you need to check yourself. Besides, I'm fine with the Wii's graphics. PS3's rock, but for the experience I get with my friends, $250 is worth it now, and I'd be willing to pay it again in 3-5 years for more fun.



LEFT4DEAD411.COM
Bet with disolitude: Left4Dead will have a higher Metacritic rating than Project Origin, 3 months after the second game's release.  (hasn't been 3 months but it looks like I won :-p )

Around the Network

I think you are simplifying it a bit. Simple truths. 1. A very small percentage of people own a tv capable of displaying HD resolutions currently exist. 2. HD content, which will push the sells of HD tvs, will not be mainstream in the US until 2009 and Japan 2011. So, it will be a few more years before HD tvs become the majority to sets in homes. Keeping this in mind you have two distinct choices. A. Buy a $600 PS3 / 360 w/ HDDVD drive to enjoy your HD games on your SD tv for a couple of years until you can finally get that HD tv. (unless your one of the 15% crowd that is an early adopter and already have an HD tv). B. Buy a $250 Wii that looks great on your component cabled SD tv. Then in 3 years pay another $250 for WiiHD, now that you finally have an HD tv to actually enjoy the HD content. Spending a total of $500 on a system that best matched your viewing abilities. Plus, get the added bonus of a newer gen Wii that will have better graphics; being that it came out 3-4 years after the others and will have the benefit of hindsight on how to dramatically enhance the capabilities of that level of hardware. I choose the more sensible option of B. Especially sense once you include inflation for the 3 year gap the WiiHD is actually closer to $200, and due to overall lower dev costs games stay at the $50 price point the whole time. So I say keep your 360/PS3 for the 10-year life cycle (more like 7 if previous gens are to be considered), if anyone will actually be able to own only one during that time. I don't know a person who hasn't had to get a new 360 yet and if history proves true with the ps1/2 the ps3 will also need to be replaced at least once. Though so far the PS3's out there, granted a very small amount, haven't had many issues to the hardware.



AmishGramish said: So, $600 or $400 for a console that lasts 10 years or $250 three times for consoles that last 3 years each? $600 (PS3) or $400 (360) compared to $750 Wii, Wii 2.0, Wii 3.0? I would rather buy one console and play a lot of great games on it and have it last a bunch of years. Would you buy a $10,000 car, and four years later buy another one for $10,000, sell the first one for $4,000, buy another car four years later for $10,000, sell the second one for $4,000, etc. I would rather buy one car for $20,000 or $25,000 than buy three cars for $30,000 total. How about a TV? Three black and white ones or a color one? Three color ones or an HD one? ETC.!!!!!!
The problem is that in 3-5 years time, the PS3 will likely be outdated and you'll have to shell more money on a newer and more up to date system. Car technology don't advance as much as silicon based electronics.



superchunk said: So I say keep your 360/PS3 for the 10-year life cycle (more like 7 if previous gens are to be considered), if anyone will actually be able to own only one during that time. I don't know a person who hasn't had to get a new 360 yet and if history proves true with the ps1/2 the ps3 will also need to be replaced at least once. Though so far the PS3's out there, granted a very small amount, haven't had many issues to the hardware.
Agreed. And fanboyism aside...you have to admit Nintendo's hardware and customer support has been pretty reliable in the past. Heaven forbid a Wii have a defect, but Nintendo would replace it without much trouble. I got a replacement DS for the one dead pixel it had; it was incredibly easy.



LEFT4DEAD411.COM
Bet with disolitude: Left4Dead will have a higher Metacritic rating than Project Origin, 3 months after the second game's release.  (hasn't been 3 months but it looks like I won :-p )

Kwaad said:Yup FF12 looks horrible. Wii rocks. *yawn* There we have it. The PS2 sucks. Wii is god... *worships the Wii*
You're using a lot of irony, but that's just to save you're skin because you can't back up your statements. The opinions about the graphics on the games I mentioned are not made by fanboys, which is why I use them. You should really try taking the Sony-glasses from your eyes and see what objective people have to say. I hate subjectivity. As for the Wii, I don't consider it to be a god. There's just plain simple truths: 1. Wii is going to have games with great graphics (better than 6th gen), PS3 with excellent graphics and 360 already has games with superb graphics. 2. Nintendo is making profit, unlike Sony and Microsoft (on the gaming department). Gaming consoles is a business for the companies, so you can't say Nintendo suxx, because they're making profit. Obviously the choices Nintendo made were smart. I would have personally wanted a more powerful console from Nintendo, but that one wouldn't have reached the masses as well, so there would have been less great games, because game studios are also about making business.



They[Nintendo] tried the graphics approach and they sucked at it.