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

Forums - Nintendo - If Nintendo (Wii) wins this gen...

L.C.E.C. on 16 August 2007

No... I think Nintendo has a great thing going and cannot be compared with the PS2. I think that the records on PS1 "Winning" can't be confirmed on this site considering that the N64 records are so incomplete... N64 just seemed so much more popular than PS1. I also think that like all three of the gaming industry giants, Nintendo can get a tiny bit cocky sometimes. For Every 3rd good idea they have, there is almost always a bad one as well.

NES = Great, Classic. D-Pad was an amazing Idea.

Game & Watch = Good. First Real Handheld (No, the football game your parents played doesn't count).

R.O.B. = Gimmick.

GameBoy = Good.

SNES Good. First 3D system

Virtua Boy Baaaad.

Gameboy Pocket/light = Good

N64 = Good. Mario & Zelda beat the heck out of Crash, and Spyro. Trident Controller became well-known.

GameBoy Color = Pretty Good, but somewhat short-lived.

Gameboy Advanced = OK, but Had to get Perfect Sunlight to see anything.

Gameboy Advanced SP = GREAT Idea. many rip-offs in design. (EX: VideoNow XP... What a piece of crap)

GameCube = Could have been great, but shut out too many 3r-party developers.

GameCube LAN = Killed, Dead.

DS = Good. Very Revolutional and Intuitive. Is beating the crap out of the PSP by more than 2:1 sales ratio.

Nintendo WFC (Wi-Fi Connection) - Good Idea. Great to play online.

Friend Codes System - Dumb. I don't like that they limit some of the features (custom rules, chatting) to Only your "Friends".

DS Lite = Pretty Good. Extended Battery life, and made the screen more colorful. Made the handheld more portable. Longer Stylus... Attracted more Sales.

GameBoy Micro = How many people even bought this instead of a DS? Small screen, Only GBA Games... Faceplates? WTF?

Wii - OBVIOUSLY a Revoultion as promised, and A Hit with almost everybody

WiiFit - Looks kind of dumb. Looks like Nintendo Is pushing it a little, but, they could suprise me. (Especially if they use the board for games like Tony Hawk).




Around the Network
Justavian on 16 August 2007

I don't own any of these consoles. I'm not even much of a game player in general (though i own a few PC games), and thus i almost surely will not ever buy any of them - so i can't be considered a fanboy. And despite the fact that i favor "hardcore" gaming titles, i've been betting on the Wii.

One of the things that has been touched upon here is the amount of money that nintendo makes with each sale of a Wii. This is what finally convinced me that it was going to dominate the market. Is Sony still losing money on every sale of the PS3? How about the XBox 360? How much longer can they keep that up?

When i was making bets with some of my employees, i was suggesting that the Wii would be the most successful. Success could be measured in a variety of ways - but regardless of the number of consoles sold, by profitability standards the Wii must WAY ahead of the other two. I'm sure that MS and Sony have money to burn, but it seems to me that Nintendo has at least one huge advantage - it's easy to justify increasing your marketing budget and increasing your development budget when you're making ridiculous money!



robjoh on 16 August 2007
Soriku said:
Anyone have anything else to say?

 Actualy I have or at least the same thing again, I now repeating myself is boring but this thread seems to be too fun to just let go:

 So when can somebody explain why it woud be finanscial a good idea to make a Wii HD in 2008/09?



 

 

Buy it and pray to the gods of Sigs: Naznatips!

robjoh on 16 August 2007
Soriku said:
^ No ome has an answer lol.

 So why did they start to argument that it would happen? Are they idiots?



 

 

Buy it and pray to the gods of Sigs: Naznatips!

HappySqurriel on 16 August 2007
robjoh said:
Soriku said:
^ No ome has an answer lol.

 So why did they start to argument that it would happen? Are they idiots?


I wouldn't say that they're idiots they just don't understand that videogame companies see the videogame industry as a business ...

Everything comes down to dollars and cents and companies are generally not interested in taking a path which does not give them a strong financial return. This lack of understanding shows up in pretty much every argument and is probably the main reason so many people make outlandish predictions that are so often wrong.



Around the Network
robjoh on 16 August 2007
HappySqurriel said:
robjoh said:
Soriku said:
^ No ome has an answer lol.

So why did they start to argument that it would happen? Are they idiots?


I wouldn't say that they're idiots they just don't understand that videogame companies see the videogame industry as a business ...

Everything comes down to dollars and cents and companies are generally not interested in taking a path which does not give them a strong financial return. This lack of understanding shows up in pretty much every argument and is probably the main reason so many people make outlandish predictions that are so often wrong.


 So no idiots just ignorant?



 

 

Buy it and pray to the gods of Sigs: Naznatips!

kn on 16 August 2007
HappySqurriel said:
fkusumot said:

All forms of entertainment are in competition for the entertainment dollar. Trying to parse out, carve up and build walls between different sources of entertainment and their revenue is an interesting exercise but at some point it becomes meaningless. All consumers have a finite amount of dollars that they will spend for entertainment. Some entertainment will get a lot of dollars, some entertainment will get some dollars and some entertainment will get very few dollars. All forms of entertainment are in competition for the entertainment dollar.


That is something that people constantly miss ...

People have limited time and money to devote to personal entertainment and the time and moeny they spend on music, movies, television and reading certainly can not be spent on playing videogames; the only thing to note with this is that people are unlikely going to completely replace all of their time/money from a particular activity and replace it with another so there are limits to the ammount of time/money you can capture accross markets.

The videogame industry itself has limited personal and financial resources to devote to producing games as well, money and development teams that have been devoted to the Wii or Nintendo DS certainly can not (easily) be devoted to producing PS3, XBox 360 or PSP games.This puts developers in the position where they have to allocate their resources in a way which minimizes the ammount of resources consumed whilst capturing the largest portion of their consumers' resources; essentially they want to invest the least ammount of money to get the largest ammount of revinue thereby maximizing their profit.

The end result of this is the PS3 is in direct competition with the Nintendo DS (and Nintendo Wii) regardless of whether people realize this or not.

 


 So you guys would argue that a movie competes wit a ps3?  Hmm... that's a big of a stretch I think.  From economics 101, supply and demand theory factor in a number of things to determine supply/demand equilibrium for a given product or service.  Substitutable goods is one of the variables, but a movie is not a substitutable good for a PS3 video game.  Substitutable, in the theory, talkes about goods that are so similar that they can truly act as a substitutes for each other.  In real life, of course, substitutability can range from perfect substitution as in different brands of salt for instance, or near-substitutes such as a 360 vs. a PS3.  You cannot compare all forms of entertainment as substitutes for each other as they clearly are not.  If they are not, economic supply/demand theory simply does not apply and stating that movie consumption directly competes with video games is dubious at best.



I hate trolls.

Systems I currently own:  360, PS3, Wii, DS Lite (2)
Systems I've owned: PS2, PS1, Dreamcast, Saturn, 3DO, Genesis, Gamecube, N64, SNES, NES, GBA, GB, C64, Amiga, Atari 2600 and 5200, Sega Game Gear, Vectrex, Intellivision, Pong.  Yes, Pong.

HappySqurriel on 20 August 2007
kn said:
HappySqurriel said:
fkusumot said:

All forms of entertainment are in competition for the entertainment dollar. Trying to parse out, carve up and build walls between different sources of entertainment and their revenue is an interesting exercise but at some point it becomes meaningless. All consumers have a finite amount of dollars that they will spend for entertainment. Some entertainment will get a lot of dollars, some entertainment will get some dollars and some entertainment will get very few dollars. All forms of entertainment are in competition for the entertainment dollar.


That is something that people constantly miss ...

People have limited time and money to devote to personal entertainment and the time and moeny they spend on music, movies, television and reading certainly can not be spent on playing videogames; the only thing to note with this is that people are unlikely going to completely replace all of their time/money from a particular activity and replace it with another so there are limits to the ammount of time/money you can capture accross markets.

The videogame industry itself has limited personal and financial resources to devote to producing games as well, money and development teams that have been devoted to the Wii or Nintendo DS certainly can not (easily) be devoted to producing PS3, XBox 360 or PSP games.This puts developers in the position where they have to allocate their resources in a way which minimizes the ammount of resources consumed whilst capturing the largest portion of their consumers' resources; essentially they want to invest the least ammount of money to get the largest ammount of revinue thereby maximizing their profit.

The end result of this is the PS3 is in direct competition with the Nintendo DS (and Nintendo Wii) regardless of whether people realize this or not.

 


 So you guys would argue that a movie competes wit a ps3?  Hmm... that's a big of a stretch I think.  From economics 101, supply and demand theory factor in a number of things to determine supply/demand equilibrium for a given product or service.  Substitutable goods is one of the variables, but a movie is not a substitutable good for a PS3 video game.  Substitutable, in the theory, talkes about goods that are so similar that they can truly act as a substitutes for each other.  In real life, of course, substitutability can range from perfect substitution as in different brands of salt for instance, or near-substitutes such as a 360 vs. a PS3.  You cannot compare all forms of entertainment as substitutes for each other as they clearly are not.  If they are not, economic supply/demand theory simply does not apply and stating that movie consumption directly competes with video games is dubious at best.

I'm not talking about economics in a theoritical discussion, I'm talking real world situations ...

Everyone has a limited ammount of time and money that they can expend doing everything. If I spend 8 hours a day working, 2 hours a day working out, and 1 hour in transit, that leaves me with 3 to 5 hours of day left for errands and entertainment; if I choose to spend my 2 hours playing a DS game or watching a movie I can't be spending that time playing on the PS3.

 

 



L.C.E.C. on 30 August 2007

Who's S-E???




fkusumot on 30 August 2007

@kn

You display an impressive command of the supply/demand theory. It still remains a fact that all people have a limited amount of disposable income.



I Blame Wii Fit!