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

Forums - Sales - Why this generation has already been decided

ScuubyT on 27 June 2007
ArtofAngels said:
mrstickball said:
They aren't the only company based on simple economics. Microsoft and Sony are in the video game markets for reasons far bigger than just videogames, therefor just using "they are losing money" as an excuse is dumb.

For Sony, they've almost always made a profit until they decided to push more online functions and Blu-Ray technology. As I've said, and will say again, Sony is pushing a machine to push Blu-Ray, therefore the actual benefit of the PS3 to Sony (as a corporation) isn't entirely in gaming. Therefore, their true profits off of videogames isn't entirely disclosed in mere P&L statements for the PS3, nor console losses. So what if the PS3 looses $200? The PS2 lost $120 per system @ launch (give or take), and ended up making Sony billions of dollars.

For Microsoft, they are taking the route of pushing alot of DLC, addons, content upgrades, and such. Consoles aren't their bread and butter, which is why they lose so much. However, their bread and butter are from vista/office sales, and software. Secondarily, they make lots off of servers, to which MS is using their servers for XBL content. For all we know, profits for the H&E division are less because sales of MS Points and XBL Gold subscripts. aren't included.

Nintendo is the only game company because thats all they are. For them, if Nintendo ever lost money, they'd go bankrupt. Sony and MS have the advantage of being able to lose money, and being able to recoup it.

You can extrapolate "oh, if Sony/MS were just videogame companies, they'd be bankrupt" thats just faulty logic. Your assuming that if both companies just made videogame systems, they'd pursue the same stratagies, but they wouldn't. They wouldn't have the massive bits of cash to invest in things that Nintendo can't even invest in. Theres a reason the Wii uses rehashed GC technology - it's cheap. Theres a reason Nintendo can't invest in a fully functioning online network - it costs money Nintendo is unwilling to pony up for quickly, as its alot of money. This is a plus and minus.

For consumers though, the Sony/MS is better in the fact that we gain where they lose. We get systems that are far more powerful for the dollar than the Wii. Which might mean, or not mean anything to various gamers (to me it does though).

Ultimately, your trying to make a hypothetical point thats totally invalid. MS and Sony aren't video game companies. Thats why they sell systems, and what they do works for them.

Pink: Your Display pic typically matches the content in your post.

Red: Make's no sense as is, however makes a little sense if you take Microsoft out.

Blue: Makes even lese sense then the red zone, If I lost $5 in a poker machine do I declare bankruptcy?

Green: I agree, but don't believe it will pay off.

Purple: It's not really working for them at the moment now is it?

 

Their Bread and Butter is elsewhere, fair enough that's true, but you've gone and said that if video games was all they had they would take different strategies, okay, so basically they don't care if they lose money, "Hey we have so much money lets make a supreme console just for shits and giggles"

I think your wording was just a tad off.

They want to win this War as much as Nintendo are, Profit wise.


How do you figure that the "Red" comment isn't true?  It's entirely, 100% true.  Sony and MS don't exactly try to make a secret about that.  They would only take a different strategy if they didn't have the money to lose, which Nintendo didn't have.  If, and I'm not claiming victors or anything like that, the Cell and Blu-Ray become mainstream, Sony will be rolling in cash when this is over...whether they sell the most consoles or not.  They had the money to lose so they could get the Cell and Blu-Ray out in the market, so they did.  MS, on the other hand, doesn't want people to abandon high end PC's for consoles, so they created the DirectXBox.



Around the Network
windbane on 27 June 2007
RolStoppable said:
windbane said:

1. No reason why PS3 sales won't pick up. Great games coming, price cut this year most likely, and tons of exclusives and multis with the 360 that won't be on the Wii.

2. I'm just saying that just because a format hasn't taken over yet doesn't mean you can't see that it's heading towards it. There are some titles that have been in the top 10 in dvd sales and the number of players, number of tvs, and number of movies are increasing each week.

5. I can read and I've read everything I can find about Charged and the online service with it. I find friend codes annoying and Charged online options lacking, even if it's an improvement. I think Nintendo gets a pass for lacking good online features too much. It's almost as if just because they don't try as hard people don't expect as much.

As for Manhunt 2: the controls don't have anything to do with it considering ther PS2 version also is delayed for the same reason of receiving an AO rating. If it was released on the PS2 and not on the Wii, I'd just play it on the PS2. I enjoyed Manhunt 1 there already.

6. A lot of the games have been new announcements, but yeah, we'll get a glimmer of the future at E3.

7. When it comes to sales, you can compare whatever you want. The fact is that the PSP is selling better than the Wii in Europe. In no way do I have to compare the PSP only to the DS. If both are successful what difference does it make? The DS is crushing the PSP. Ok. The PSP is still beating the Wii and is as closer to the same price point than the Wii is to the 360.

There was a thread talking about which game would sell the most this year and Pokemon was thrown out by some because it was a handheld title. You can do that, but ignoring that it sells much more than any other doesn't make it untrue. Now, comparing revenue would be interesting since Pokemon is half the price of a 360 or PS3 game. If you consider that, it might not be the highest selling. Either way, it exists, so it still counts as a game being sold.

Handhelds don't sell more than consoles by default. The PS2 is the highest selling machine now. The GBA and GB are next but obviously there is not some magic thing about handhelds that discounts the fact that the PSP is outselling the Wii. The PSP is not as successful as the DS, but it is still a great success.

Btw, most of the best games are coming out later this year for the PSP (and this week with PQ2).

Finally, if you compare the GB and GBA to the DS (aligning launches), then neither the GB and GBA are successful by your definition. I think most would disagree. There are degrees of success, and the PSP is doing very well.


1) This point has been reduced to "time will tell", I guess.

2) Okay then, Bluray is heading towards being successful. But I wouldn't bet money on it that it will become the successor of the DVD.

5) One person's experience or opinion not neccessarly shows the general consensus.

As for Manhunt 2: Well, most of the media is talking about the Wii version because of its controls. If the game gets finally released, I think it will sell better on the Wii than on the PS2.

6) Same as 1).

7) You can compare the PSP to whatever you want, okay. That doesn't mean that those comparisons make much sense. The PSP has to be compared to the DS because they are both in the handheld market and sales numbers are an indication for publishers to know where they should put their development teams on. The lackluster sales of the PSP are causing a resource shift to the DS. If you feel happy comparing the PSP to the Wii, fine.

Every console's or handheld's success is defined by how well it does compared to its competition in their respective generation. The PSP is not a success, especially considering Sony's own expectations.

I am aware of that. But they won't boost hardware sales significantly. The PSP sales are declining, 2.5 years after being launched. The PSP is on the road of a losing system, it's not successful.

My definition of success is: Every console's or handheld's success is defined by how well it does compared to its competition in their respective generation. Successful consoles and handhelds: Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis (in europe), PS1, PS2, GB, GBA, DS. The Wii has the best chances of this generation's consoles to be added to this list.

In your next post, explain to me for which reasons the PSP should be considered a success.


5.  Your opinion doesn't by default mean any more than mine.  You think Nintendo is doing a fine jon with their online service, and I think it's terrible so far.

Most of the media focuses on the controls but the ESRB also gave the PS2 version of Manhunt an Adult Only Rating.  The controls had nothing to do with the rating.  I would hope the Wii version would sell better because it's a slightly more powerful system.  However, the majority of PS2-Wii multi-platform games have sold better on the PS2 so far.

7.  I have already stated many reasons, but it doesn't matter to you.  I don't believe comparing the PSP to only the DS is a fair comparison, but you are telling me it's the only comparison.  You want to divide handhelds as if the same companies don't develop games for both.  If Square decides to make a game they aren't always deciding PSP or DS, they may decide PSP, Wii, PS2, or DS.  All offer advantages.  There are not many games that go both on the DS and PSP, both systems get unique games.

Not only that, but you are saying that only the leading seller in handhelds only and consoles only each generation is successful.  The Genesis, a console you say is only "successful" in Europe because it beat out the SNES there, barely, and yet it only trailed the SNES by 23 to 17 million in the US.  That's fairly successful if you ask me.  #2 can be successful.

I think the PSP can be judged by how successful it is without including the DS in the equation.  The DS is on a level that not even the GBA or GB can touch, and both were successful to you.  The PSP is selling as well as the PS2 so far in its lifespan.  I find that very significant.  I find it very interesting that the PSP is outselling the Wii in Europe the last few months.  The PSP will sell more than the Genesis and N64, and perhaps more than the SNES and NES.  That seems successful to me. 

This might be another point we'll just have to drop because you won't accept any comparison except for the DS.  I think you're right that Sony is disappointed.  I think they will learn from their mistakes with the PSP.  However, despite the mistakes, it has still been successful.  By your definition of success, #1 is the only winner.  If the Wii goes on to sell over 75 million but gets beat by the PS3 (let's say over 100 million), you'll still consider the Wii a failure?



windbane on 27 June 2007
RolStoppable said:
windbane said:

1) On the PSN I can download demos that are larger than 1GB. I've used 40GB so far downloading demos, trailers, and games (new ones, not old games I can play on my PC, PS3, PSP, etc) as well as installing games. Most of that I can delete any time because I've just been lazy and kept them all on there (lots of movie trailers), but it's nice to be able to use that much storage. Also, I can get 500GB for $100 now and use that for my PS3. Not saying I don't like SD cards because I believe they are cheaper than memory sticks, but the Wii is limited so far.

2) Very few virtual console games will interest me due to the fact I can download them on my PC for free and play them on the PS3, PSP, and PC like I said. You say the public speaks for everything but there are no solid numbers of each download of Wii, PSN, and 360 games. Many PSN and Live games wouldn't fit on the Wii's internal memory, and some of the games that will end up on both services will not be able to be put on the Wii's network.

3) I don't think the limited internal memory is selling the console. You can't just argue that sales numbers justify everything being done with the Wii. The controller is pretty much carrying the sales right now. You are right by saying the reviews have been overall better for the PS3, and nearly everything else is better on the PS3 as well. The only thing the PS3 doesn't have is pointing detection, which it will have (and better) for Time Crisis 4.

4) The sales indicate the controller is fun and the price is cheap. We'll see how long that carrys it. I hope Metroid Prime can prove that the FPS controls are better than the analogs because although I thoroughly enjoyed Resistance both story mode and online, the dual analog system is not the best by a long shot.


1) 60gb don't seem to be much of storage space if you have already used 40gb of it so early in the system's life. I know what you are going to say, 512mb are less, but considering the downloads that are available on the Wii it seems to be enough for quite a while.

Here is a quote from KruzeS regarding space on the Wii and upcoming original games offered in the Wii shop channel, taken from another thread:

I don't get the people that are all worried about space. Do you really need to have access to 25+ games at the same time!? Once you fill it up, guys, which most people won't, ever, just get an SD card, a 2GiB one. Or a 4GiB, as some actually work. That's another 100-200 games per card.

This is all at Virtual Console sizes, but that's not fair, right? Wrong. Even if the size limit was 100MiB a game (much too high, Microsoft's is/was at 50MiB), you're still in for 50-100 games on average, without even getting your butt off the chair to change the card. And after all these games, you can always exercise your ass and buy more cards or, even better, backup stuff to your PC.

This is supposed to be for the little games, people. Flash/Shockwave/Java like little games. Notice how the 26 titles from Data Design Interactive & Conspiracy Entertainment Corporation are all supposed to be boxed. WiiWare will be smaller than that, you hear me? Much, much smaller.

Plus, once and for all, understand one thing: you are not the average gamer. The average gamer is not going to buy 50 games, or be worried that they have to backup some 2 year old games to make room for new ones.

 

2) One person's experience or opinion not neccessarly shows the general consensus.

Also, Nintendo has made an announcement for downloaded VC games some time ago. If I remember right, 3.4 million.

3) Yes, the internal memory doesn't sell the console, but it is considered value by the consumer. The sales numbers for the Wii are carried by the new gaming experience it delivers. The point of TC4 is moot. The gun won't be used in many games.

4) The sales indicate that the Wii is the hottest system right now. Time will tell how long it lasts.


1.  I highlighted my statement you apparently ignored.  Will Nintendo never have anything to download that isn't a very small game?  That is a terrible online service in this gen in comparison to the 360 and PS3.  I think the PSP should also come with more storage by default.

2.  Compare VC downloads to 360 or PS3 downloads, or heck, even PSP downloads.  Then you'll have something.  Otherwise, your opinions on the matter are no greater than mine.  I think the Wii's storage limits it for the future, including this "new" (and I'm sure it will be called innovative) "Wiiware" initiative to get original games in the Wii store.  PSN and Live games will likely not fit.

3.  There is little value if you have to get another card to store stuff.

4.  Time will tell, indeed.  I guess the generation has not "already been decided."  Like I said, this thread's title is not a fact. 



windbane on 27 June 2007
ScuubyT said:
ArtofAngels said:
mrstickball said:
They aren't the only company based on simple economics. Microsoft and Sony are in the video game markets for reasons far bigger than just videogames, therefor just using "they are losing money" as an excuse is dumb.

For Sony, they've almost always made a profit until they decided to push more online functions and Blu-Ray technology. As I've said, and will say again, Sony is pushing a machine to push Blu-Ray, therefore the actual benefit of the PS3 to Sony (as a corporation) isn't entirely in gaming. Therefore, their true profits off of videogames isn't entirely disclosed in mere P&L statements for the PS3, nor console losses. So what if the PS3 looses $200? The PS2 lost $120 per system @ launch (give or take), and ended up making Sony billions of dollars.

For Microsoft, they are taking the route of pushing alot of DLC, addons, content upgrades, and such. Consoles aren't their bread and butter, which is why they lose so much. However, their bread and butter are from vista/office sales, and software. Secondarily, they make lots off of servers, to which MS is using their servers for XBL content. For all we know, profits for the H&E division are less because sales of MS Points and XBL Gold subscripts. aren't included.

Nintendo is the only game company because thats all they are. For them, if Nintendo ever lost money, they'd go bankrupt. Sony and MS have the advantage of being able to lose money, and being able to recoup it.

You can extrapolate "oh, if Sony/MS were just videogame companies, they'd be bankrupt" thats just faulty logic. Your assuming that if both companies just made videogame systems, they'd pursue the same stratagies, but they wouldn't. They wouldn't have the massive bits of cash to invest in things that Nintendo can't even invest in. Theres a reason the Wii uses rehashed GC technology - it's cheap. Theres a reason Nintendo can't invest in a fully functioning online network - it costs money Nintendo is unwilling to pony up for quickly, as its alot of money. This is a plus and minus.

For consumers though, the Sony/MS is better in the fact that we gain where they lose. We get systems that are far more powerful for the dollar than the Wii. Which might mean, or not mean anything to various gamers (to me it does though).

Ultimately, your trying to make a hypothetical point thats totally invalid. MS and Sony aren't video game companies. Thats why they sell systems, and what they do works for them.

Pink: Your Display pic typically matches the content in your post.

Red: Make's no sense as is, however makes a little sense if you take Microsoft out.

Blue: Makes even lese sense then the red zone, If I lost $5 in a poker machine do I declare bankruptcy?

Green: I agree, but don't believe it will pay off.

Purple: It's not really working for them at the moment now is it?

 

Their Bread and Butter is elsewhere, fair enough that's true, but you've gone and said that if video games was all they had they would take different strategies, okay, so basically they don't care if they lose money, "Hey we have so much money lets make a supreme console just for shits and giggles"

I think your wording was just a tad off.

They want to win this War as much as Nintendo are, Profit wise.


How do you figure that the "Red" comment isn't true? It's entirely, 100% true. Sony and MS don't exactly try to make a secret about that. They would only take a different strategy if they didn't have the money to lose, which Nintendo didn't have. If, and I'm not claiming victors or anything like that, the Cell and Blu-Ray become mainstream, Sony will be rolling in cash when this is over...whether they sell the most consoles or not. They had the money to lose so they could get the Cell and Blu-Ray out in the market, so they did. MS, on the other hand, doesn't want people to abandon high end PC's for consoles, so they created the DirectXBox.


Heh, DirectXbox.  Clever and accurate.  Nice.  =) 



Timmah! on 27 June 2007
ckmlb said:
If Nintendo became the monopoly console it would be bad for everyone including Nintendo fans who seem to be dreaming of this.

It ain't happening.

I agree 100%. I've always been a big Nintendo fan, but a monopoly is always a bad thing. Competition is the force that drives innovation... that's why so many times the underdog will come out with a product that pushes the envelope. Just think, if Nintendo had come out on top last generation, do you think they'd have taken the risk of 'revolutionizing' gameplay, or stuck with what worked the last time? Nintendo got their butts kicked, so they HAD to do something different.

Sony led 2 generations and thought they didn't have to innovate, so did the same old thing and it's hurt them. Lots of big companies have fallen apart because they became complacent and were out-innovated.



Around the Network
Timmah! on 27 June 2007
ScuubyT said:
ArtofAngels said:
mrstickball said:
They aren't the only company based on simple economics. Microsoft and Sony are in the video game markets for reasons far bigger than just videogames, therefor just using "they are losing money" as an excuse is dumb.

For Sony, they've almost always made a profit until they decided to push more online functions and Blu-Ray technology. As I've said, and will say again, Sony is pushing a machine to push Blu-Ray, therefore the actual benefit of the PS3 to Sony (as a corporation) isn't entirely in gaming. Therefore, their true profits off of videogames isn't entirely disclosed in mere P&L statements for the PS3, nor console losses. So what if the PS3 looses $200? The PS2 lost $120 per system @ launch (give or take), and ended up making Sony billions of dollars.

For Microsoft, they are taking the route of pushing alot of DLC, addons, content upgrades, and such. Consoles aren't their bread and butter, which is why they lose so much. However, their bread and butter are from vista/office sales, and software. Secondarily, they make lots off of servers, to which MS is using their servers for XBL content. For all we know, profits for the H&E division are less because sales of MS Points and XBL Gold subscripts. aren't included.

Nintendo is the only game company because thats all they are. For them, if Nintendo ever lost money, they'd go bankrupt. Sony and MS have the advantage of being able to lose money, and being able to recoup it.

You can extrapolate "oh, if Sony/MS were just videogame companies, they'd be bankrupt" thats just faulty logic. Your assuming that if both companies just made videogame systems, they'd pursue the same stratagies, but they wouldn't. They wouldn't have the massive bits of cash to invest in things that Nintendo can't even invest in. Theres a reason the Wii uses rehashed GC technology - it's cheap. Theres a reason Nintendo can't invest in a fully functioning online network - it costs money Nintendo is unwilling to pony up for quickly, as its alot of money. This is a plus and minus.

For consumers though, the Sony/MS is better in the fact that we gain where they lose. We get systems that are far more powerful for the dollar than the Wii. Which might mean, or not mean anything to various gamers (to me it does though).

Ultimately, your trying to make a hypothetical point thats totally invalid. MS and Sony aren't video game companies. Thats why they sell systems, and what they do works for them.

Pink: Your Display pic typically matches the content in your post.

Red: Make's no sense as is, however makes a little sense if you take Microsoft out.

Blue: Makes even lese sense then the red zone, If I lost $5 in a poker machine do I declare bankruptcy?

Green: I agree, but don't believe it will pay off.

Purple: It's not really working for them at the moment now is it?

 

Their Bread and Butter is elsewhere, fair enough that's true, but you've gone and said that if video games was all they had they would take different strategies, okay, so basically they don't care if they lose money, "Hey we have so much money lets make a supreme console just for shits and giggles"

I think your wording was just a tad off.

They want to win this War as much as Nintendo are, Profit wise.


How do you figure that the "Red" comment isn't true?  It's entirely, 100% true.  Sony and MS don't exactly try to make a secret about that.  They would only take a different strategy if they didn't have the money to lose, which Nintendo didn't have.  If, and I'm not claiming victors or anything like that, the Cell and Blu-Ray become mainstream, Sony will be rolling in cash when this is over...whether they sell the most consoles or not.  They had the money to lose so they could get the Cell and Blu-Ray out in the market, so they did.  MS, on the other hand, doesn't want people to abandon high end PC's for consoles, so they created the DirectXBox.


'Red' is definitely true!

Sony has a lot to gain or lose with the success or failure of Blu-Ray & cell. 

On the other hand MS not only wants to push DirectX, but they want to invade every aspect of our daily lives... Media center PCs, Zune (made for bigger reasons then just music), Windows mobile, Windows CE, Windows XP Embedded, DirectXbox (Thanks, ScuubyT), before you know it we'll be eating 'Frosted MS Icons' breakfast cereal...



windbane on 27 June 2007
RolStoppable said:
windbane said:

5. Your opinion doesn't by default mean any more than mine. You think Nintendo is doing a fine jon with their online service, and I think it's terrible so far.

Most of the media focuses on the controls but the ESRB also gave the PS2 version of Manhunt an Adult Only Rating. The controls had nothing to do with the rating. I would hope the Wii version would sell better because it's a slightly more powerful system. However, the majority of PS2-Wii multi-platform games have sold better on the PS2 so far.

7. I have already stated many reasons, but it doesn't matter to you. I don't believe comparing the PSP to only the DS is a fair comparison, but you are telling me it's the only comparison. You want to divide handhelds as if the same companies don't develop games for both. If Square decides to make a game they aren't always deciding PSP or DS, they may decide PSP, Wii, PS2, or DS. All offer advantages. There are not many games that go both on the DS and PSP, both systems get unique games.

Not only that, but you are saying that only the leading seller in handhelds only and consoles only each generation is successful. The Genesis, a console you say is only "successful" in Europe because it beat out the SNES there, barely, and yet it only trailed the SNES by 23 to 17 million in the US. That's fairly successful if you ask me. #2 can be successful.

I think the PSP can be judged by how successful it is without including the DS in the equation. The DS is on a level that not even the GBA or GB can touch, and both were successful to you. The PSP is selling as well as the PS2 so far in its lifespan. I find that very significant. I find it very interesting that the PSP is outselling the Wii in Europe the last few months. The PSP will sell more than the Genesis and N64, and perhaps more than the SNES and NES. That seems successful to me.

This might be another point we'll just have to drop because you won't accept any comparison except for the DS. I think you're right that Sony is disappointed. I think they will learn from their mistakes with the PSP. However, despite the mistakes, it has still been successful. By your definition of success, #1 is the only winner. If the Wii goes on to sell over 75 million but gets beat by the PS3 (let's say over 100 million), you'll still consider the Wii a failure?


It seems everything is running into a dead end. If the Wii will sell less than the PS3, even if the Wii sells 100 million in #2, I consider it a failure. The PSP won't reach the sales numbers of the SNES. The PSP will most likely end up in the 30-35 million range. If you think that 20 % marketshare for a handheld are a success, do so.


Just because another system sells more than the Wii, selling 100 million would be a failure?  Wow.

You predict the DS to sell 150 to 175 million?  Wow.

I guess we are done.  Thanks. 



gorgepir on 27 June 2007

@windbane
You can't download virtual games for the PC for free. Using emulators is just a simple form of piracy. Like it or not. But it doesn't have an effect on the overall sales. Just look at itunes. Some people like to download legally. That is just how people are.



Timmah! on 27 June 2007
RolStoppable said:
windbane said:

1. I highlighted my statement you apparently ignored. Will Nintendo never have anything to download that isn't a very small game? That is a terrible online service in this gen in comparison to the 360 and PS3. I think the PSP should also come with more storage by default.

2. Compare VC downloads to 360 or PS3 downloads, or heck, even PSP downloads. Then you'll have something. Otherwise, your opinions on the matter are no greater than mine. I think the Wii's storage limits it for the future, including this "new" (and I'm sure it will be called innovative) "Wiiware" initiative to get original games in the Wii store. PSN and Live games will likely not fit.

3. There is little value if you have to get another card to store stuff.

4. Time will tell, indeed. I guess the generation has not "already been decided." Like I said, this thread's title is not a fact.


1) I didn't ignore that part, but you are acting like the internal flash memory of the Wii is used up within days. If you think Nintendo offers a terrible online service, feel free to do so. It won't stop the Wii from becoming #1.

2) Whatever you say. It won't stop the Wii from becoming #1.

3) Whatever you say. It won't stop the Wii from becoming #1.

4) Whatever you say. It won't stop the Wii from becoming #1.

Now that is an arrogant post, isn't it?

Really, if you don't like the Wii, I won't be able to convince you to change your opinion. If Nintendo can't do anything right in your opinion, I won't be able to convince you to change your opinion.

And this generation has already been decided. Deny it as long as you wish, it won't change anything.


I do think the Wii will most likely be number one this gen- it just has too much momentum right now. Almost everyone who has played my wii has expressed interest in getting one for themselves, even former GC haters- this has been said by many wii owners.

Nintendo will pick up the soft & medium-core gamer croud that made PS1 & PS2 sell so many units, and many hardcore gamers will get one as well. Sony has grossly overestimated brand loyalty.



windbane on 28 June 2007
RolStoppable said:
windbane said:

1. I highlighted my statement you apparently ignored. Will Nintendo never have anything to download that isn't a very small game? That is a terrible online service in this gen in comparison to the 360 and PS3. I think the PSP should also come with more storage by default.

2. Compare VC downloads to 360 or PS3 downloads, or heck, even PSP downloads. Then you'll have something. Otherwise, your opinions on the matter are no greater than mine. I think the Wii's storage limits it for the future, including this "new" (and I'm sure it will be called innovative) "Wiiware" initiative to get original games in the Wii store. PSN and Live games will likely not fit.

3. There is little value if you have to get another card to store stuff.

4. Time will tell, indeed. I guess the generation has not "already been decided." Like I said, this thread's title is not a fact.


1) I didn't ignore that part, but you are acting like the internal flash memory of the Wii is used up within days. If you think Nintendo offers a terrible online service, feel free to do so. It won't stop the Wii from becoming #1.

2) Whatever you say. It won't stop the Wii from becoming #1.

3) Whatever you say. It won't stop the Wii from becoming #1.

4) Whatever you say. It won't stop the Wii from becoming #1.

Now that is an arrogant post, isn't it?

Really, if you don't like the Wii, I won't be able to convince you to change your opinion. If Nintendo can't do anything right in your opinion, I won't be able to convince you to change your opinion.

And this generation has already been decided. Deny it as long as you wish, it won't change anything.


Wow, I missed this pointless post.  Sorry.

You admitted "time will tell" many times but all the sudden you go nuts.  

Whatever you say, it won't change the fact that the Wii has problems and obstacles keeping it from being a sure #1.  You can ignore all of my points but that doesn't make this generation decided.

I already said I'm getting a Wii, but I'm not blind to its problems.  I would rather wait until they include a hard drive or at least more storage.   Time will tell on that one, too.  Kinda pointless to have so little storage if you are trying to get people to download online games, though.