fkusumot said: MontanaHatchet said: fkusumot said: MontanaHatchet said: Rath said: MontanaHatchet said: I'm trying to thaw the basic idea here. The Wii is better being vastly weaker than the other systems. And if the Wii shouldn't be compared to the other systems, why do most of us do it? It's complete hypocritical! Oh, the Wii is selling the most, but it's on a completely different playing field. Thus, the 360 is selling the most. Or maybe the DS? But considering that the DS is cheap and it's expanded the bounds of controls, perhaps it's on a different playing field as well. What if Sony made a console much like the Wii, and Nintendo decided to follow Sony's route, making a powerful system but keeping the same control? Most of you (but I'm not pointing fingers) would still go to Nintendo's side. Perhaps he's thinking to himself, "Hey, imagine if we could couple the power of the PS3 or 360, with the controls of the Wii." "We could make amazing games!" Perhaps he really does just hate the Wii, and he just wants to mock is so that fanboys on chat rooms all over the world can insult a man they know nothing about. That seems like the most logical theory, because, much like most of your opinions, mine were complete crap. ~MontanaHatchet~ The point isnt that Nintendos direction for this generation was to produce a cheaper less powerful system rather than an expensive powerful one and this guy is saying 'Hey if they made an expensive powerful sytem it would be pretty good!'. Hes saying that the Wii would be good if it wasnt the Wii, and thats why hes being mocked. I can understand that. I think the Wii could have both different controls and advanced engines. I mean, remember how excited some people were at the thought/rumor of an HD Wii? Besides, what would the Wii cost with advanced technology? Considering the fact that most people are excited to dump an entire savings into WiiFit, I fail to see how it would hurt, as long as it's not the cost of a PS3.   I have no idea what you mean by this but I found it quite funny regardless. Well, think about it. If you can get a Core 360 for almost the price of a Wii, despite the 360 being far more powerful, then either Microsoft is ripping themselves off or Nintendo is ripping all of us off. But I think it's called "profit". WiiFit is $80 for the balance board alone, and then I'm guessing oh, say, $50 for the game itself. So, in the end, that's more than the price of a 360 Premium and almost the price of a 40 gig PS3, despite the fact that those two systems are vastly more powerful. My main point for WiiFit is that something as boring looking as it shouldn't charge you out the ass. Uhm, where did you get this information from?

 I'm pretty sure that Nintendo announced it at E3 07 with the introduction of WiiFit, but I could be incredibly wrong. Which is very likely.

http://www.concierge.com/tools/currency

About $74.

But, from what I've heard, games and hardware actually cost less in Japan, so you never know.

Bodhesatva said: This is one of my pet peeves. The suggestion that the Wii has "set us back" is absurd. As a PC Gamer with top-of-the-line hardware, I could say the same for the 360 and PS3: the fact that those systems exist mean that less games are going to fully optimize my (more expensive and) more powerful computer. Why is it that the PS3 and 360's technological advancements are just right, while the Wii is too far behind the times and the PC is only for crazy losers who spend way too much money? I haven't bought into Nintendo's hype -- as this article suggests -- he has bought Microsoft and Sony's spin, because he believes that their graphical advancements are the correct standard, the one which clearly all other choices should be compared to, and thus the PC is too much and the Wii is too little. Here's an analogy: This guy: "Your porridge is too cold." Me: "I like my porridge." This guy: "But it's too cold. You bought in to that porridge even though it's too cold." Me: "Too cold compared to what? I think it's just fine." This guy: "Compared to this porridge over here. I'll call it porridge prime." Me: "Well, aren't porridge prime and my porridge both cold compared to some other porridges?" This guy: "No, yours is too cold, and all porridges that are hotter than porridge prime are too hot."

 

I couldn't have said it better myself.  Well I guess I could have, but then I wouldn't have been myself.  I would be you, and I'd be too expensive to develop comments for.

Brilliant. 

 

MontanaHatchet said: fkusumot said: MontanaHatchet said: fkusumot said: MontanaHatchet said: I can understand that. I think the Wii could have both different controls and advanced engines. I mean, remember how excited some people were at the thought/rumor of an HD Wii? Besides, what would the Wii cost with advanced technology? Considering the fact that most people are excited to dump an entire savings into WiiFit, I fail to see how it would hurt, as long as it's not the cost of a PS3.   I have no idea what you mean by this but I found it quite funny regardless. Well, think about it. If you can get a Core 360 for almost the price of a Wii, despite the 360 being far more powerful, then either Microsoft is ripping themselves off or Nintendo is ripping all of us off. But I think it's called "profit". WiiFit is $80 for the balance board alone, and then I'm guessing oh, say, $50 for the game itself. So, in the end, that's more than the price of a 360 Premium and almost the price of a 40 gig PS3, despite the fact that those two systems are vastly more powerful. My main point for WiiFit is that something as boring looking as it shouldn't charge you out the ass. Uhm, where did you get this information from? I'm pretty sure that Nintendo announced it at E3 07 with the introduction of WiiFit, but I could be incredibly wrong. Which is very likely.

 It reminded of the first time someone said "WiiPlay is $20 for the software alone, then I'm guessing oh, say, another $50 for the remote."

Lol.

It still would have been a relatively good deal.

It would also be more expensive...give and take people ;)

Come on, you must have a better argument than a slippery slope. Deal with those questions when they arise: for now, all anybody is asking is for a harddrive and HD support.

These two are not like the other things in your list -- they should be standard features at this point for any gaming system, because they enable support for what have become standard features in games. Harddrive caching, downloadable content, demos, standard modern TV resolutions: these aren't just nice little extras anymore, they're features we've (rightly) come to expect.

And don't confuse HD graphics with PS3/360 level graphics. Even the PS2 and the original XBOX supported HD resolutions--that's all we ask, but with slightly more universal support to reflect the Wii's supposedly enhanced power. This wouldn't have cost them much.


Loss leading is not a poor strategy. It's a risky strategy, but one that can pay off in spades. Loss leading is what allowed Sony to absolutely clobber the competition (including Nintendo) for the last 2 generations. If the PS1 or 2 had sold at a profit from early on, they would be remembered as minor blips in gaming history. Instead, they were two of the most profitable systems in history over the long term.

Now loss leading has become the noose around Sony's neck, but that's because of a mountain of other mistakes, not the loss leading itself. They invested too heavily in expensive technology that hasn't proven itself superior, they came out late, they didn't secure enough exclusive 3rd-party support, their PR was a disaster, the list goes on. The combination of all these things made loss leading a poor risk to take, but without them it would have been a good strategy (see the 360, which made some of the same mistakes but to a much lesser degree).

This is the truth, as I see it: if Nintendo had chosen to lose $50 per system instead of profit $50, the Wii could have had a harddrive, HD support, and a lot more, and cost the same as it does now. Even if they'd chosen to break even, it would be miles beyond what we actually got. As it turns out, it wouldn't have done Nintendo one bit of good, since they couldn't possibly be selling more systems than they are now. But don't tell me it couldn't have been done, or that it would change some magical quality that would turn the Wii into something else.

I think the people that say the Wii should have had hard drive and HD support fall into three broad (and possibly overlapping) categories:

1. People that wanted (and may still want) the Wii to fail.
2. People that haven't been noticing why the Wii has been selling the way it has.
3. People that are never satisfied with what they have or realize the difference between potential and actualization.

2 out of 3 companies doing something does not make it standard. By that logic, both the Wii and the PS3 use motion controls, making it the standard, meaning the 360's control scheme is holding that system back, making it "last-gen" if you're into that stupid phrase. 2 out of 3 systems have free online services, making XBox Live an online system for cavemen. Cavemen who pay. You could also say that launching for less than $599 is now standard, and anybody who charges that much is nuts (oops, this one's true).

I disagree it is not going back a generation. It is still more powerful than the previous generation plus it is something new and exciting. Change = the next generation. The only backlash i can see is the motor bikes in Mario Kart and the delay of SSBB unless I'm missing something else.