Nintendo Wii

[tommy]

Anyone thinking of getting this console? After seeing some people playing this console on tv it really does seem that Nintendo has taken their next gen console in a more fun real way to play games then Sony or Microsoft.

Actually having to move your arms to control certain aspects of the game and getting more involved in your favorite game seems more like an upgrade and a real next gen console of the future while other game makers just went with the same old controller setup.

To me Nintendo has always been the king of all games not having to rely on others to make great games for their console and making Nintendo's own games more fun and more sought after and original then others just trying to make money can ever do.

Money really isn't an issue but if Nintendo can offer exciting new gameplay and comparable graphics at a "reasonable" price i think i will buy me a new Nintendo when it's available. you?

[hypernova]

Wife will get it for me for Christmas.  Only starting out with the included sports game and Zelda.

Will be EAGERLY awaiting Mario Galaxy, SSB: Brawl, another Mario Kart, and especially Metroid Prime 3!

[tommy]

I heard a long time ago before the Wii ever had it's name that Nintendo will be making a new Punchout game of some sort. I'm sure it will be alot better than the sports package boxing that will come with the console.

Hopefully there still will be a great punchout game somewhere in Nintendo's future.

[lcddream]

getting it launch day.

hopefully i can walk right into nintendo world store grab a wii, zelda maybe another game and an extra controller....then walk out and b line it to my apartment.

i have a feeling i'll be using a sick day that monday 

[somunny]

getting it launch day.

hopefully i can walk right into nintendo world store grab a wii, zelda maybe another game and an extra controller....then walk out and b line it to my apartment.

Yeah, shouldn't be too busy there.    There's a lot of people trumpeting the fact that Wii's will be plentiful at launch but I remain skeptical.  I hope Nintendo proves me wrong.

[tommy]

When you get it/if, post some first impressions of graphics and the controler handling, make sure you play for a few hours because such a new controller will take time to get used to.

[Frosty]

Did the pre-order thing at Toys R US last week.  Amazingly, I showed up no more than 35-40 minutes before (this was about my limit--didn't really feel like waiting more than an hour.  Figured I'd take my chances on release date if that didn't work....) the store opened and was number 20 in line for the Wii.

I was in, paid for the pre-order and out the door in less than 45 minutes total.  Sweet!

[Hoagie_one]

I'll get one after xmas, only because I'm working so much overtime that I wouldn't have time to play it anyways.

[Tahnok]

getting it launch day.

hopefully i can walk right into nintendo world store grab a wii, zelda maybe another game and an extra controller....then walk out and b line it to my apartment.

Yeah, shouldn't be too busy there.    There's a lot of people trumpeting the fact that Wii's will be plentiful at launch but I remain skeptical.  I hope Nintendo proves me wrong.

Plentiful yes, but Nintendo is still saying that they expect them to sell out, despite having such a large number of them.

[AtomSmasher]

Plentiful yes, but Nintendo is still saying that they expect them to sell out, despite having such a large number of them.

I'm guessing they probably will sell out most places on launch day, but it'll take several hours to sell out so you shouldn't have to be there at opening to get one.  Also, if the supplies are as plentiful as they expect, then everyone who wants one should be able to easily get one within the first month of the release since more large shipments should come in a week or two after launch day.

[tommy]

For all the Playstation fans and how much more popular the ps2 was over the gamecube i still can't find a reason why it was loved over the GC.

I had a ps2 and a gamecube and ran soul calibur 2 on both at the same time, the gamecube loaded battles in half the time then the ps2 and looked as good or better. Thats only one example but i'm sure there are others.

Nintendo seems to always have a better machine then the rest.

On an unrelated note, should we be worried about the first run production of these new consoles not working well? PS3 or Wii?

I don't know alot about console production and wonder if a second batch Nintendo would be better then a first batch?

[leapinlew]

My dad had a Gamecube (to play tiger woods golf) and I had a Xbox. We both played tiger woods. His came on 2 discs and mine came on one. Nintendo Gamecube used those mini-discs.

Anytime he went to a different part of the game, he had to swap the disc. It was a major pain. When we played some tiger woods on my xbox he noticed that I had quite a bit more content(live demos and stuff).

Those mini-discs were probably a mistake on Nintendos part. I can't think of any other examples.

I'm looking forward to the wii

[tommy]

I think the small discs were to protect their games from being stolen, if i remember correctly.

The way you say he had to swap discs makes it sound like it was every five minutes. At the games halfway point you swap discs, so.

[leapinlew]

I think the small discs were to protect their games from being stolen, if i remember correctly.

The way you say he had to swap discs makes it sound like it was every five minutes. At the games halfway point you swap discs, so.

Yeah, I think it was some sort of anti-piracy move. It didn't work and ultimately ended up being more of a limiting feature.

You would have to swap discs anytime you wanted to go into the store to purchase gear. So, after finishing a round of golf and earning some money, you would have to swap discs, buy what you want, and swap discs back. They put all the courses on one disc and some of the other content on the other.

Point is... while the game looked nearly identical - the xbox version was superior.

[GoPodular.com]

Yes, the GC used a proprietary disc format to combat piracy.  The Wii will follow similar lines:
12cm dual-layer proprietary disc ~8.5Gb of data.  It will also play GC discs.

(according to the info I have anyhow)

We have one on our wedding gift list.  It was even *her* idea. 

[koolmoecraig]

I've got two on pre-order.  One for me and one to sell to help pay for the one for me.

[shmokes]

I think that right off you'll probably make a profit, but I wouldn't think more than $50 or so.  I just don't think they're gonna be all that scarce on store shelves -- not with 4 million coming to North America between launch and the end of the year.

[koolmoecraig]

You're probably right.  There is no risk of loss so why not try?

[Tahnok]

Yeah, I think it was some sort of anti-piracy move. It didn't work and ultimately ended up being more of a limiting feature.

I would say all their anti-piracy stuff worked pretty well. The GM couldn't be chipped until not too long ago. Compared to how quickly the other consoles got cracked, I would say the GC held out pretty well. They can't expect to stop piracy, but they can sure delay it.

As far as why the GC was so unrated, I've never known. I've never heard of this multi-disk problem; it's not something you'll run into on many games. It seems like the problem with the game you're describing is more poor software planning, as appose to hardware limitations.

[leapinlew]

I would say all their anti-piracy stuff worked pretty well. The GM couldn't be chipped until not too long ago.

Maybe it worked well. The fact that it wasn't as popular as the other consoles probably had more to do with it.

As far as why the GC was so unrated, I've never known. I've never heard of this multi-disk problem; it's not something you'll run into on many games. It seems like the problem with the game you're describing is more poor software planning, as appose to hardware limitations.

True. The GC was the favorite console from a few people I know. I wish I had the time to play it. It has all the games that I really would want to play. Except Tiger Woods Golf... It wasn't poor software planning. They made a game and while it fit on the standard sized DVD's for the xbox and ps2, the smaller disc size presented a problem for the GC owners. They could still play it, and it looked just fine - it was just a nuisance.

I'm pulling for the Wii to be a fun console. Xbox seems to have the online component going well. I hope the PS3 crashes and burns.

[Tahnok]

I would say all their anti-piracy stuff worked pretty well. The GM couldn't be chipped until not too long ago.

Maybe it worked well. The fact that it wasn't as popular as the other consoles probably had more to do with it.

Yeah, maybe. It's not really as capable as the Xbox, as far as running emus and such. Still...

True. The GC was the favorite console from a few people I know. I wish I had the time to play it. It has all the games that I really would want to play. Except Tiger Woods Golf... It wasn't poor software planning. They made a game and while it fit on the standard sized DVD's for the xbox and ps2, the smaller disc size presented a problem for the GC owners. They could still play it, and it looked just fine - it was just a nuisance.

That is poor planning. They knew what systems they were going to put the game on when they started. They knew how big the GC disks are. There's no excuse for not being able to create something better. If nothing else, if they didn't want to eliminate too much content, I'm sure they could have arranged the swaps to be more conveniently placed. Yes, it was probably a bad move by Nintendo to use mini-DVDs, but other developers don't seem to have such problems porting their games to GC.

I hope the PS3 crashes and burns.

Amen. Sony needs a reality check.

[AtomSmasher]

The reason the GC wasn't as big as the xbox or PS2 has a lot to do the lack of 3rd party support, the vast majority of good-great games on the GC were made by Nintendo.  PS2 and xbox had a lot more games because of their 3rd party support.  So far the Wii seems to have a lot of 3rd party support, which will help them out a lot.

[somunny]

Find out exactly how many Wii's your Target is getting.

http://boards.ign.com/nintendo_wii_lobby/b8270/130542464/p1

[AtomSmasher]

Find out exactly how many Wii's your Target is getting.

http://boards.ign.com/nintendo_wii_lobby/b8270/130542464/p1

Nice.  Looks like the 2 stores closest to me will be getting 60 each, and the store about 30 miles away (where I have to travel a couple times every week anyways) is getting 120.  Assuming best buys will also be getting roughly this many, and eb games/game stops probably getting about 1/2 as many each, there should be plenty of Wii's to go around on launch day.

[hypernova]

I hope the PS3 crashes and burns.

Amen. Sony needs a reality check.

We can hope, but I don't think it'll happen.  Too many people just have money to throw away anymore.  And apparently it's being loved at the show in Hawaii right now.

[somunny]

I hope the PS3 crashes and burns.

Amen. Sony needs a reality check.

We can hope, but I don't think it'll happen.  Too many people just have money to throw away anymore.  And apparently it's being loved at the show in Hawaii right now.

Why does that make you have a little sad face? 

[yalborap]

For all the Playstation fans and how much more popular the ps2 was over the gamecube i still can't find a reason why it was loved over the GC.

I had a ps2 and a gamecube and ran soul calibur 2 on both at the same time, the gamecube loaded battles in half the time then the ps2 and looked as good or better. Thats only one example but i'm sure there are others.

Nintendo seems to always have a better machine then the rest.

On an unrelated note, should we be worried about the first run production of these new consoles not working well? PS3 or Wii?

I don't know alot about console production and wonder if a second batch Nintendo would be better then a first batch?

One good trick by Sony combined with one big mistake of Nintendo's. When Nintendo ditched them to go with carts again for the N64, Sony managed to appeal to what is now known as the 'casual' gamer. Through this, they in turn managed to gain massive marketshare filled with people who will now buy damn near anything that says 'playstation' on it.

Ideally that will end soon and Sony will either die or get their head out of their ass.


As for the Wii, I'm camping out in the local super wal-mart and getting one. If that fails, I'm heading down to the local Target and waiting from midnight till opening(Wal-marts are doing midnight sales). And if THAT fails, Toys R Us. I'll have a Wii no matter what it takes.

[shmokes]

You crazies!  That's totally unnecessary.  Nintendo is sending millions of Wiis our way.  You totally don't need to camp for one.  There's not going to be a significant Wii shortage.

[AtomSmasher]

For those trying to get a Wii on launch day, these links may help you out.

http://www.wiiloaded.com/wiinews-3082

Looks like toys r us is getting more of them then anyone, which makes sense since they have been announced as Nintendos official launch partner.

Heres a Guide to finding a Nintendo Wii at Launch
http://www.wiiloaded.com/wiinews-3040

Lots of their info is still considered rumors, but probably not far from the truth and they'll update it as the facts come in.

[yalborap]

You crazies!  That's totally unnecessary.  Nintendo is sending millions of Wiis our way.  You totally don't need to camp for one.  There's not going to be a significant Wii shortage.

1 million, actually, not millions.

[somunny]

No, millions.  As in four million by Christmas.

[Goz]

With all of the controller options the Wii should be a bad-ass system. With anyluck there will be some good physical games like MOCAP Boxing, etc.

The new Mario game though is enough to encourage most fans to get the system.

-Goz

[AtomSmasher]

No, millions.  As in four million by Christmas.

And Nintendo has said if the demand is high enough, then they may even ship more.  Supply doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

[shmokes]

It certainly shouldn't be a problem considering it's basically a glorified Gamecube as far as the hardware is concerned.   

To be fair, I think the allocation might actually be 1 million units for the day of launch with 3 million more coming in the following weeks.  So if you ABSOLUTELY had to have one on launch day maybe it's a good idea to camp.  But it's not like the Xbox 360 or the PS3 (or the PS2 for that matter) where if you didn't get one at launch you didn't get one until March.  With the Wii, if you don't get one at launch you just won't have one for a few days -- maybe a week.

[tommy]

I was just checking out the Wii's graphics compared to the 360's and they can almost pass for the same to the naked eye.

The 360 has 3 - 4.2ghz processors compared to the Wii's 1- 729ghz, something seems abit off to me. I know the processor is hardly related to the video cards but the Xbox SEEMS so far ahead of the Nintendo on paper they should be decades apart.

[leapinlew]

I was just checking out the Wii's graphics compared to the 360's and they can almost pass for the same to the naked eye.

The 360 has 3 - 4.2ghz processors compared to the Wii's 1- 729ghz, something seems abit off to me. I know the processor is hardly related to the video cards but the Xbox SEEMS so far ahead of the Nintendo on paper they should be decades apart.

What kind of display was it? Where you'll see the xbox/ps3 shine is on a large HD display.

[shmokes]

729ghz . . . that's a fast processor!   

Seriously, the difference in horsepower is significant and immediately obvious.  I'm including some screenshots.  The first ones are direct comparisons of the Wii and 360 versions of Call of Duty, Madden and Tony Hawk.  After that are screenshots of Red Steel, which is probably the best looking Wii game, and Gears of War which is the best looking 360 game I know of.  Actually, Zelda: Twilight Princess is probably the best looking Wii game, which is pretty telling considering it'll be available for the gamecube looking 100% identicle to the Wii version exceept that it won't run in widescreen mode.

[shmokes]

Keep in mind that I am unreasonably excited about the Wii and pretty much indifferent about the 360.  I just think that the difference in graphics capabilities between the two systems is very significant and immediately apparent even to the naked and untrained eye.

[tommy]

I'm starting to wonder why Nintendo put forth such an effort that was not the best they could have done, if only they went all out i think they could have made a console head and shoulders better then the rivals.

Why not get some heavy duty processors going in the Wii? ATI and Nintendo made a CG graphics card much better then the PS2 in my opinion. Put a gig of ram all up in that thing with a great 6.2ghz processor.

I will be getting a Nintendo and i still stand by my original post but they could have made a better console i think.

I guess i will have to wait till the next next gen system to play movie like games? Or is that the next next next gen?

[shmokes]

Yeah, I agree.  If the console hit at $150 I could completely overlook the subpar graphics, but $250 ain't a mainstream price, IMO.  Especially with the controllers being $60 a pop.  A Wii plus one controller already costs more than an Xbox 360.  That's just not a significant price difference. 

I want the Wii more than any other console because of the innovative controller, but graphics are important.  It isn't just icing.  It makes gameplay better and creates new kinds of gameplay, and makes games more immersive.  Physics is important.  AI is important.  Sound is important.  These are all legitimate pieces to the next gen puzzle and they all require processing power. 

Nintendo should have either given us a truly mass market price, which they could have done while still not taking nearly as heavy a loss per unit as MS with the 360 or Sony with the PS3 (they aren't taking any loss on the hardware at all), or they should have made a console that was more competitive visually with the 360 and PS3.  Since they did neither I truly doubt they will end up market leader in this round.  Had they done one or the other I think they would have been.

[tommy]

I think the Wii can still compete with the stronger other consoles due to their original games that cannot be found anywhere else, even though it could have been better and i wonder why they made a console that is probably a souped up CG with motion controlers.

Sadly i feel if this is the best nintendo can come up with or all they are willing to do(from a hardware standpoint) they should just sell mario and zelda to microsoft and i bet would make more money than trying to compete with them in the console wars.

[AtomSmasher]

Another resource for launch day Wii seekers:  http://www.ps3seeker.com/wii/

it doesn't seem to do a very good job at centering at the zip code though.

According to that, my local best buy is getting 96, and walmart is getting 53

I'll probably show up close to opening at Sams club first (maybe they'll have some sort of bundle that will save me a little money), then move on to target and bestbuy, if all else fails I'll make the trek down to the toys r us which should have plenty.

[Zero_Hour]

My Atari VCS (what they originally called the 2600) cost $200 at launch. Mattel's Intellivision launched at $300. At $250 in 2006 dollars, Wii has arguably the least expensive console pricing at launch (seriously, who bought an Atari 7800?* ). Given the additional technology included in the controllers, I think their core bundle is one hell of a bargain.

*edit* Changed link to show Absolute and relative Launch Prices

http://curmudgeongamer.com/imgdisplay.php3?shotfile=console-prices-relative.png

*edit*

Another advantage that may not be seen initially by end users is that developers are estimating Wii development costs to be roughly half of what they will spend to develop titles for the other two platforms. This makes taking a chance on the Wii much more palatable to 3rd party developers. This increases the likelihood of strong 3rd party support, which is what makes or breaks consoles these days.

I thought I had given up on consoles when my PS2 died, but I'll be picking a Wii up as soon as I can. It just looks like it will be fun, and that's what's most important to me when I play games. HD content? That's nice, but a shiny piece of crap is still a piece of crap. without games I want to play, all the technology is worthless.



*my apologies to any 7800 fanboys who may be reading this. 

[shmokes]

The fact is, Nintendo is not taking a loss on the hardware.  Therefore you aren't getting a bargain on the hardware.  You ARE getting a bargain on the PS3 and Xbox 360.  The Wii is cheaper than the other two, but Sony and MS are losing hundreds of millions of dollars to give you their hardware at the price they are giving it to you. Nintendo is making a profit on their hardware.

And, for what it's worth, the Atari 2600 and Intellivision were not aimed at mainstream consumers.  They were aimed at a small niche of gamers and they carried high price tags that mainstream consumers wouldn't even look at.

Supposedly that's what Nintendo's big thing was, opt out of the hardware arms race to offer the first console that was designed for and priced for mainstream audiences.  They opted out of the arms race, as is evidenced by the screenshots above.  But they gave us a box that is $50 less than the Xbox 360.  $50?  You mean to tell me that the only thing separating MS from this mainstream nirvana is $50?

Exactly.

Dell doesn't make money for every piece of software you install on your computer.  Dell has to make a profit on hardware.  Nintendo take a piece of every game sold for Wii, regardless of who publishes it.  This is how console makers get away with selling hardware at a loss.  They take a loss on the hardware because it's a Trojan horse into your living room and they make up for the loss and then some because of all the software you buy.  In the past console makers have understood this.  Sony and MS still do.  If Nintendo, who again is making a profit on every Wii sold, wanted the Wii to have a mass market price it could be A LOT cheaper than it is now.

I'll get a Wii before either of the other systems.  If I can be called a fanboy for any company it is Nintendo.  But for $250 it should be a lot better than it is.

[AtomSmasher]

Just thought I'd point out that the Wii also comes with a full game, which the 360 does not.  I agree that they probably should of priced it at $200, but Nintendo is a business and they felt that selling it for $250 would make them the most money in the long run.  My guess is that they are probably right because I've yet to hear someone say they would of bought it at $200, but $250 is just too much for them.

[shmokes]

Is your Mom going to buy herself one?  How about people you know who have never "got" videogames.

They're supposedly aiming to expand the market by introducing millions of non-gamers to the joy of gaming.  I can tell you right now that not many non-gamers are going to be sold by the new controller to the tune of $250.  I know my mom sure ain't.

[AlanS17]

The reality is that Nintendo (the company as a whole) is focusing on a younger market segment. They has been doing this for a long time. Look at titles from the Mario and Pokemon series for proof. This younger market segment is less sensitive to things like graphics and more sensitive to overall "fun factor". A new controller would probably go over well with them.

When they talk about being accessible to people who didn't play video games before, I think they probably mean either kids that were otherwise to young to play or people in the 18-35 age segment who just don't care about video games.

As for being "expensive", it's all relative. Compared to the other new systems, this one is cheap. It's much easier for kids to ask their parents for a Wii for Christmas than for a PS3 or XBOX 360.

Nintendo finally hit a homerun with the Nintendo DS. It's a console that appeals not only to the younger crowd, but to adults as well. I don't think this will carry over well to the Wii. That being said, it'll still be successful enough to keeping them from turning into Sega (by getting out of consoles and just making games). I was convinced that was going to happen at the end of the upcoming console generation if it didn't go well for them. I'm pretty sure they'll be safe now.

[shmokes]

It's much easier for kids to ask their parents for a Wii for Christmas than for a PS3 or XBOX 360.

$50 easier to be precise.

[AtomSmasher]

Is your Mom going to buy herself one?  How about people you know who have never "got" videogames.

They're supposedly aiming to expand the market by introducing millions of non-gamers to the joy of gaming.  I can tell you right now that not many non-gamers are going to be sold by the new controller to the tune of $250.  I know my mom sure ain't.

My Mom wouldn't buy one if the system only cost $50, neither would anyone else I know that have never "got" videogames.  They see this system as just another gaming console, something they have no interest in regardless of the price.  How cheap do you think the system should be?  I can't imagine them selling it for less then $200 and I really don't think $50 is going to change too many peoples minds.

And you do realize that the 360 requires a harddrive for several of its features, which means even if you bought the $300 version, you'd still want to buy a $100 harddrive on top of that.  Not to mention the fact that Wii games cost $10 less then 360 games, which means the Wii is cheaper in the long run for gamers as well.

[Zero_Hour]

The fact is, Nintendo is not taking a loss on the hardware.  Therefore you aren't getting a bargain on the hardware.  You ARE getting a bargain on the PS3 and Xbox 360.  The Wii is cheaper than the other two, but Sony and MS are losing hundreds of millions of dollars to give you their hardware at the price they are giving it to you. Nintendo is making a profit on their hardware.

And MS has yet to turn a profit on XBOX, which were it not for their other divisions would make this conversation moot. Contrary to popular belief video game consoles have not been historically sold at a loss.

And, for what it's worth, the Atari 2600 and Intellivision were not aimed at mainstream consumers.  They were aimed at a small niche of gamers and they carried high price tags that mainstream consumers wouldn't even look at.

You are so wrong here it's funny. Ataris were bought largely by parents for their children. The only videogames that really predated them were pong variants and the woefully undersold Odyssey. There were no nice gamers in that era. The price was a factor of new technology entering the mainstream market. Kind of like VCRs in the same era. The reason that videogames are still viewed as 'kids stuff' by a signifigant portion of America, is because for them, that's what they were.

Supposedly that's what Nintendo's big thing was, opt out of the hardware arms race to offer the first console that was designed for and priced for mainstream audiences.  They opted out of the arms race, as is evidenced by the screenshots above.  But they gave us a box that is $50 less than the Xbox 360.  $50?  You mean to tell me that the only thing separating MS from this mainstream nirvana is $50?

Nintendo's big thing was a mainstream price AND profitability. Not everyone has a monopoly in operating systems and office software to prop up their losses in video game console sales. Sony is in a similar position. They can sell at a loss due to their entertainment and other consumer electronics divisions. Nintendo is making the correct business decision, in my opinion.

Dell doesn't make money for every piece of software you install on your computer.  Dell has to make a profit on hardware.  Nintendo take a piece of every game sold for Wii, regardless of who publishes it.  This is how console makers get away with selling hardware at a loss.  They take a loss on the hardware because it's a Trojan horse into your living room and they make up for the loss and then some because of all the software you buy.  In the past console makers have understood this.  Sony and MS still do.  If Nintendo, who again is making a profit on every Wii sold, wanted the Wii to have a mass market price it could be A LOT cheaper than it is now.

You are wrong again. There is no evidence that consoles were sold at a loss prior to XBOX. If you can find me some, I'd love to see it. Nintendo is wise to not take a loss on hardware. And Dell can sell on razor thin margins because they ship an insanely large number of systems. even if the Nintendo Wii dominates the marketplace, they can never hope to sell the kind of volume Dell can, because fortune 500 companies are not going to be putting game consoles on our desks at work anytime soon.

I'll get a Wii before either of the other systems.  If I can be called a fanboy for any company it is Nintendo.  But for $250 it should be a lot better than it is.

I'm getting one too, and I'm no fanboy - I had a used NES in the late 80's and that has been my only Nintendo purchase thus far. Your desire for Nintendo to follow a dubious, and still unproven business model for console sales does not diminish the potential of that console.

[AtomSmasher]

I'm getting one too, and I'm no fanboy - I had a used NES in the late 80's and that has been my only Nintendo purchase thus far.

Hehe, same here, the NES was my last console from nintendo (excluding handhelds)

[AlanS17]

I'm getting one too, and I'm no fanboy - I had a used NES in the late 80's and that has been my only Nintendo purchase thus far.

Hehe, same here, the NES was my last console from nintendo (excluding handhelds)

My last Nintendo console was the SNES. I moved over to Playstation after that. The Wii is gonna be my chance to not only jump back on the Nintendo bandwagon, but to also play catch-up because of the virtual console.

[Hoopz]

And, for what it's worth, the Atari 2600 and Intellivision were not aimed at mainstream consumers.  They were aimed at a small niche of gamers and they carried high price tags that mainstream consumers wouldn't even look at.

You are so wrong here it's funny. Ataris were bought largely by parents for their children. The only videogames that really predated them were pong variants and the woefully undersold Odyssey. There were no nice gamers in that era. The price was a factor of new technology entering the mainstream market. Kind of like VCRs in the same era. The reason that videogames are still viewed as 'kids stuff' by a signifigant portion of America, is because for them, that's what they were. 

You are close, but not quite right.  Atari was bought by parents who didn't know better.  The Intellivisions were bought by discerning parents who wanted the best for their kids.   

Seriously, your time frame is right though.  I remember buying a Pong game back in 78 or so.  When Atari and then Intellivision came out, it created quite a buzz.  But there really wasn't anything before it besides pong.  They were aimed at the mainstream consumers.  They had commercials all over television trying to sell their products.  George Plimpton was in the ones for Intellivision. 

[Stingray]

(seriously, who bought an Atari 7800?* )

I did, but I'm something of a console junkie.

-S

[shmokes]

Tickle Me Elmo is not a mainstream product.  It's a kid's toy.  My point is that Nintendo is trying to expand the market beyond traditional gamers, while those systems you were pointing to were not aimed at people in general, but to a specific group of people -- gamers.

Anyway, it makes more sense to judge it by today's standards.  How is Nintendo suddenly bucking tradition with a mass-market price that is higher than their last system?  The Gamecube cost $199.  The Wii is going to opt out of the arms race and give us an unheard of mainstream price of $250 ? ? ?

The Sega Saturn and Dreamcast were both sold at a loss.  Dunno about N64.  Playstation was presumably sold at a loss, considering it was more powerful than the Saturn, which was selling at a loss, and they brought it to America at $299 while it was $499.

Anyway . . . I'm just not that amazed by a $250 price point from Nintendo.  They were going on and on about the incredibly low price for months before they finally announced it. 

Wii - $250
Gamecube - $199
N64 - $199
SNES - $199
NES - $199

Not to mention that when all the other systems came out they were as powerful or more than all their competitors.  $250 isn't unreasonable for a console launch - with inflation the consoles have technically been getting cheaper each time around -- it just ain't that special.  But if Nintendo didn't want to disappoint me with the price they shouldn't have led me to believe that they were preparing to release the Wii with an unheard of low price.  And if they weren't going to release it at an unheard of low price, it should be more competitive in the horsepower department.  The core Xbox 360 is $50 more than the Wii.  It doesn't have a hard drive, but then neither does the Wii.  The tech inside their controllers ain't that expensive.  A Nintendo controller costs $20 more than a MS controller.

I REALLY want a Wii as it is, but it could be, and should be better.  Or cheaper.  IMO.  Or at the very least people who think $250 is unheard of ought to look at the history of console prices.

[odysseyroc]

I would rather pay $200 for the Wii and use that extra dough to get a game I really want. If I can walk into Target and get a Wii, then I'll be buying one, but I have no interest at all in that Sports game that comes with it.

[Zero_Hour]

Tickle Me Elmo is not a mainstream product.  It's a kid's toy.  My point is that Nintendo is trying to expand the market beyond traditional gamers, while those systems you were pointing to were not aimed at people in general, but to a specific group of people -- gamers.

I guess this is where we choose to disagree. The majority of the early ads for Atari and Intellivision ads were aimed at Kids and Families. Check out the "Have you Played Atari Today?" ad on youtube for a good laugh at the 'gamers'.

Anyway, it makes more sense to judge it by today's standards.  How is Nintendo suddenly bucking tradition with a mass-market price that is higher than their last system?  The Gamecube cost $199.  The Wii is going to opt out of the arms race and give us an unheard of mainstream price of $250 ? ? ?

You're right, I forgot about the GC, which in adjusted dollars was nintendos least expensive system launch. I don't think I ever described the Wii's price as unheard of, just that it was one of the lowest for a console launch when considering all major console prices in adjusted dollars, sorry if that wasn't clear.

The Sega Saturn and Dreamcast were both sold at a loss.

Point taken, but look where it got Sega - completely out of the hardware market. Nintendo would be incredibly stupid to sell at a loss, if they don't have to, and it would appear that they don't.

Dunno about N64.  Playstation was presumably sold at a loss, considering it was more powerful than the Saturn, which was selling at a loss, and they brought it to America at $299 while it was $499.

I can't find any evidence that either the PSone or PS2 were ever sold at a loss. I'm not saying they weren't just that I've never even heard it suggested until the XBOX hit the scene. Sony does have the advantage of having it's own manufacturing facilities, where MS has a third party doing all of theirs. If sony sold either of their consoles at a loss, I doubt it was for very long. I have no doubt that the PS3 will be sold at a loss simply from the Blu-Ray and Cell processor costs.

Anyway . . . I'm just not that amazed by a $250 price point from Nintendo.  They were going on and on about the incredibly low price for months before they finally announced it.

Well it may not be unheard of, but I'll be happy to pay it. 


And HooPZ I was waiting for an Intellivision owner to remind me of how crappy Atari's graphics were - But man did I hate that goofy controller.

[Hoopz]

And HooPZ I was waiting for an Intellivision owner to remind me of how crappy Atari's graphics were - But man did I hate that goofy controller. Grin

You must be thinking of Colecovision!   

I always thought it was easy to use, but then I played it all the time.   I would think, in retrospect, it really was a pre-cursor to the more advanced controllers that systems have today.

[SirPoonga]

I would say the Wii has the same goal as the DS, it is targeted at everyone, not just gamers.  I would say the DS is a little more targeted at gamers than the Wii.

I was looking at footage of Madden for the Wii.  I'm not going to like it and I regularly get Madden titles.  It didn't look hardcore football.  It looked like it was bring football to the masses.

I think because of this new control method there are going to be games people never thought they would have played.

I have no interest at all in that Sports game that comes with it.

Why not?  It isn't going to be like a traditional sports title.  It's meant to show off the Wiimote's capabilities.  The tennis doesn't really sound like a sports game as much as a waving your arms around.  The ONLY thing you control is the swing.  You don't control the movement of the character.

However, if the GC is any example it will drop in price in 6 months.

I'm probably going to get a Wii next spring if I get a good tax return.

[odysseyroc]

Why not?  It isn't going to be like a traditional sports title.  It's meant to show off the Wiimote's capabilities.  The tennis doesn't really sound like a sports game as much as a waving your arms around.  The ONLY thing you control is the swing.  You don't control the movement of the character.

It just doesn't look all that interesting to me. I'll take it for free, but my point was if I could get the console for $200 and spend the rest of the dough on a game I really wanted then I'd be much happier. If that game wasn't bundled with the console would that be the game you bought with your console?

[shmokes]

Playstation was presumably sold at a loss, considering it was more powerful than the Saturn, which was selling at a loss, and they brought it to America at $299 while it was $499.

Didn't finish that sentence for some reason.  It should read at the end:  while it was $499 in Japan. 

So the Saturn was selling for $399 in America at a loss and then the Playstation, which was going for $499 in Japan, came over with a more power system and undercut Sega by $100.  That's why I say PS1 presumably went at a loss.

And just to clarify, it's not you who claimed that it was coming at an unheard of low price.  It was Nintendo.  Instead of fixing a price at E3 they were all winks and smiles, saying they couldn't reveal anything yet, but it was going to be a mainstream price.  Their entire philosophy behind developing an underpowered machine is specifically to give us an extremely inexpensive machine.  Tokyo Game Show we get nothing but deflections and winks on price.  Liepzig gives us nothing but winks and grins. 

Then they give us a completely traditional price that is only $50 less than the MUCH more powerful Xbox 360 for a system that is barely more powerful than the Gamecube that currently sells for $100 and I think got as low as $80 at one point. 

It should be more powerful or cheaper.

Okay . . . I'll stop being a broken record.  I think you know how I feel about it by now    And it'll still be the first of the next-gen systems I own and would be even if it were $299 -- the same price as an Xbox 360.  I'm just disappointed in Nintendo.  I think this is a mistake that will cost them market leadership once again.  They could have gone head to head with MS and beat them hands down IMO.  Now they will be profitable, but they will not regain market dominance.

[SirPoonga]

Depending on the price

I think it is a smart move.  Remember the NES coming with SMB.  you jus tneed to buy one package.  It's a smart move considering the launch is right before the holidays.

[AlanS17]

Who buys the cheap XBOX 360 package? I don't know anybody who has. And PS3's are crazy expensive. By comparison, you get a complete, fully functional game system for less than anyone else out there.

A product's price affects its perceived value. I would be wary of the new Wii if it costed $200. I'd say, "What a piece of crap that thing must be!" Know what I mean?

Plus there is the matter of exclusive titles. It's one of the things that's kept Nintendo afloat for a long time. Mario, Zelda, Metroid... these are games you can't find anywhere else. What would a Mario game with mind-blowing realism look like? How would the world react if they start seeing the Nintendo characters they've grown to love over the past 20 years turn into something life-like. Personally, I think it would be kind of odd. Excuse me if I like my Nintendo characters to look al ittle cartoony.

Also keep in mind all the things a Wii can do that other systems can't do at ANY price level such as emulation. Want to get online wirelessly with your XBOX360? I hope you've got another $50 to shell out for a wireless adapter. Want integration with your handheld game console? Sure you can do that, if you buy a $500 PS3. Want a motion-sensitive controller? The only other option is the PS3 with their very weak motion detection. What the Wii can't do in horsepower, it attempts to make up in features.

I'm hardly a Nintendo fanboy. I haven't bought a Nintendo console in 15 years. It wasn't just the features of the Wii that made it so likeable, though. It was the price.

How many people saw a $400 XBOX360 and said, "Dude that sucks"? How many people won't even buy a PS3 for a couple years because it costs too much? Now, how many people are gonna look at a Wii and jump at the chance to own a next-gen console at a very reasonable price?

</rant>

[shmokes]

A #1 - I guess PS3 wins with the highest perceived value.  Actually, in pure economic terms, PS3 is probably the best value because Sony is taking subsidizing so much of the cost so you're getting $900 of hardware for $600 or some such rot.  Of course there's a lot more to value than simply how much a thing costs.

B #2 - The last two movies I saw in the theatres were The Departed and Monster House.  The Departed was pretty realistic and Monster House was pretty cartoony.  Having the capability of producing life-like graphics obviously does not preclude your ability to produce cartoony graphics.  Hell, look at the difference between Ocarina of Time/Majora's Mask and Wind Waker.  Wind Waker was on a far more powerful system then the previous two and had far more cartoony graphics than the previous two.

C #3 - I'm pretty sure that the 360 also has a lot of emulated content in its LIVE Arcade.

D #4 - You don't need to sell me on the Wii.  I'm damned excited about the controller and about the console itself (though, only because of the controller, of course).  I've been evangelizing for the system for ages and still do.  I want it to be the most successful system of the three because I've thought for ages that gamepads were an incredibly primitive input and control methods weren't advancing nearly as fast as audio and video and physics and AI, etc.  I'm all about the Wii.  I just think it could and should be better than it is for the price.

[tommy]

And, for what it's worth, the Atari 2600 and Intellivision were not aimed at mainstream consumers.  They were aimed at a small niche of gamers and they carried high price tags that mainstream consumers wouldn't even look at.

I don't agree. The first few consoles ever made were made to bring the arcade games that people of all ages enjoyed and went to an arcade to play able to play at home. The games we now consider classics that were originally only played in arcades were the first to be offered in any home console and did end up killing the arcade.

People of all walks of life, kids and adults played ms pacman and once offered at home on the Atari took the arcade home for all to enjoy, not a small percent as you seem to think.

[shmokes]

I have little to go off of, cos I was born in 1978. 

But I owned an Atari 2600.  My life revolved around videogames and I had a lot of friends who owned them.  None of our parents played.  None of them.  And while I just missed the Pac-Man craze, I was heavy into video arcades before Super Mario Bros. exploded onto the scene and they were frequented almost exclusively by kids and teenagers, almost all male.  I didn't go into the bars, for obvious reasons, but I'd guess that the games in them were also played mainly by males under 30.

Now, I'll grant that I am basing this off of memories that probably wouldn't hold up in court, being that they are 20+ years old and from when I was very young.  Maybe it just seems like it was all young boys cos the only people I went to arcades with were my own friends.  But I still tend to question what you're saying.

[shmokes]

I will admit, though . . . my wife does have an uncharacteristic love for Galaga.

[tommy]

I was born in 78 as well.

I guess it all comes down to memories and experiences, i remember going to the arcade late at night with my family and seeing them and many older people playing these classic games. Even today, the only game i can get my mom or senior family members to play was from that era.

If the Atari didn't succeed in getting the older arcade players to buy it for their home, it probably was only because the players wanted the going out experience, just the idea of having such a machine in your home is the main reason we are all here on this board now, you still can't replace the real arcade game playing experience as it was meant to be on a full size arcade machine and is a special thing to have in your home for many reasons.

[odysseyroc]

I was born in 1973, my Dad was about the age I am now when he bought our first intellivision. He mostly bought it I think because he wanted to play games. I remember him driving me and my sister all the way from The Del Amo Mall to Encino trying to find a copy of Donkey Kong when it first came out. During the week we'd play video games with kids from the neighborhood and on the weekend my uncles would come over and the adults would play Football or Baseball all night long. When NES came out my mom would play Duck Hunt with us all the time. In my experience in those days there wasn't really "gamers", it just seems like everybody was playing games.

[Zero_Hour]

Well, since we're all dating ourselves.... 

My first Atari "Console" was one of these:
http://www.atarihq.com/dedicated/stuntcycle.php
Which I received in early 77, when I was 8

I got my Atari VCS (that's what was silkscreened on it, so I can't bring myself to call it a 2600) in 1978. Arcades had yet to become the phenomenon that Space invaders(78) and Pac-Man(80) would make them, and usually arcade games were sort of just found in Hotel Lobbies, Bowling Alleys and Restaurants/Bars. There was no hardcore gamer demographic to market to, because video games were still largely seen as novelty Items by most folks.

In my neighborhood, I had an Atari, one friend had an Intellivision, and another friend had a Fairchild AND an Odyssey2. Out of all of us, My parents were the only ones who never touched the video games, but them my parents were also a bit older that theirs which probably had a little to do with it. My older sister didn't play much, but my friends younger sister was simply unstoppable at Astrosmash on the intellivision. The Intellivision definitely seemed to be the more popular with adults, at least until Atari started cranking out arcade conversions. When I talk about how those old systems were marketed, it's not from looking at old vids and guessing about it, it's because I actually absorbed it all first hand. Those products created the first of the hard-core gamers that you speak of shmokes, but the systems came first. By the early 80's and the explosion of Arcades at every mall, and even in stand alone neighborhood locations, the companies had figured out that the young male demo was their core market for both home and arcade titles, but they were all originally sold as "good wholesome family fun". Sort of a chicken and egg thing, but in this case the consoles definitely came before the 'gamer' market. It's kind of funny watching the ads for the Wii, because for me it's Deja Vu all over again. I just wish George Plimpton could have hung around a little longer to do some of the spots, although he would have probably pitched for the PS3. 

[Stingray]

The first few consoles ever made were made to bring the arcade games that people of all ages enjoyed and went to an arcade to play able to play at home. The games we now consider classics that were originally only played in arcades were the first to be offered in any home console and did end up killing the arcade.

These were the VCS launch titles. Which of these are arcade games?

Air-Sea Battle   
Basic Math   
Blackjack   
Combat
Indy 500
Star Ship   
Street Racer   
Surround
Video Olympics

I'm not arguing your point about people wanting to bring arcade "classics" home, but it wasn't happening during the very early days of video game consoles. Back in those days any video game was enough to make us happy. Nobody cared if it was a game we had never seen in an arcade.

-S

[Grasshopper]

I've not bothered at all by the Wii's inferior graphics. They look more than adequate to me. But what does irritate me a lot, and may ultimately cause me not to purchase the console, is Nintendo's decision not to include a harddrive.

Regardless of which console I buy next, I want to be able mod it, and the Wii's lack of a hardrive will severely limit what can be done with a modded machine.

[SirPoonga]

I want to be able mod it, and the Wii's lack of a hardrive will severely limit what can be done with a modded machine.

That is true.  But it does have an SD card slot.  I know there are tons of hacks for SD card stuff out there.  I did an sd hack for my linksys wrt54g router.

I also saw that there is a hack that hooks an ide harddrive to the nintendo ds. 

However, since the Wii's power is not much more than the original xbox if all you want is something to hack get that instead.

[tommy]

One of these days, hopefully, we will be able to buy a console and open it up and be free to buy upgrade hardware to improve the whole machine.(Processor, video card, memory) A console like PC is only a matter of time i think.

[AlanS17]

One of these days, hopefully, we will be able to buy a console and open it up and be free to buy upgrade hardware to improve the whole machine.(Processor, video card, memory) A console like PC is only a matter of time i think.

I think something of that sort would be as expensive as a high-end PC. Plus, with so many variations in hardware, how could game devs make a one-size-fits-all game? I just don't see it being feasible. Reducing options keeps prices lower.

[AtomSmasher]

One of these days, hopefully, we will be able to buy a console and open it up and be free to buy upgrade hardware to improve the whole machine.(Processor, video card, memory) A console like PC is only a matter of time i think.

That console isn't like a PC, it is a PC.  Consoles will never be upgradable to the point you can swap processors or video cards because part of the beauty of a console is that every one is basically the same.  That makes it much easier and faster to make the games since you no longer have to worry about support for the lowest common denominator since they are all the same.  Thats why a lot of programmers don't like making games for the PC, every PC is different.

Also, Microsoft is starting to make a huge push to make the PC the number one gaming platform.  They'll soon have shelf space with playstation and xbox games everywhere games are sold instead of being spread out where ever they can be fit into the store (next time your at gamestop, look where the pc games are), and windows vista was made with gaming in mind built to support a new gaming install and support standard Microsoft has come up with.  And with Live coming to windows, they should start releasing xbox 360 and pc version of games at the same time so people can play against each other in multiplayer (pc vs console) and there won't be very many 360 exclusive games anymore.  Pick up the latest issue of PC Gamer if your interested.

Back on topic.  I'm debating on just asking for a Wii for Christmas instead of buying one myself.  I don't know what else I would ask to get for Christmas, so I'm thinking of just sitting on my wallet and let my family get it for me.

[Tahnok]

One of these days, hopefully, we will be able to buy a console and open it up and be free to buy upgrade hardware to improve the whole machine.(Processor, video card, memory) A console like PC is only a matter of time i think.

That console isn't like a PC, it is a PC.  Consoles will never be upgradable to the point you can swap processors or video cards because part of the beauty of a console is that every one is basically the same.  That makes it much easier and faster to make the games since you no longer have to worry about support for the lowest common denominator since they are all the same.  Thats why a lot of programmers don't like making games for the PC, every PC is different.
[clip]

Which is exactly why I don't understand why both MS and Sony have gone with this "multiple packages to choose from" stuff. It kind of seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot, since they can't depend on the stuff from the higher package being available. I know, it's been brought up before...

[AtomSmasher]

Which is exactly why I don't understand why both MS and Sony have gone with this "multiple packages to choose from" stuff. It kind of seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot, since they can't depend on the stuff from the higher package being available. I know, it's been brought up before...

Sonys two machines are not too different that developers will need to dumb down the games for one of the systems, but I was very surprised that the 360 had a version with no harddrive.  That means that most/all games will now have to assume there is no harddrive, or be programmed seperately to use it since they can't alienate everyone who bought the cheaper system.  I think it was a mistake of MS to do that.

[lcddream]

Regardless of which console I buy next, I want to be able mod it, and the Wii's lack of a hardrive will severely limit what can be done with a modded machine.

correct me if i'm wrong but i beleive the wii has a usb port. which hopefully would allow an external hd to be used.

[hypernova]

Which is exactly why I don't understand why both MS and Sony have gone with this "multiple packages to choose from" stuff. It kind of seems like they're shooting themselves in the foot, since they can't depend on the stuff from the higher package being available. I know, it's been brought up before...

Sonys two machines are not too different that developers will need to dumb down the games for one of the systems, but I was very surprised that the 360 had a version with no harddrive.  That means that most/all games will now have to assume there is no harddrive, or be programmed seperately to use it since they can't alienate everyone who bought the cheaper system.  I think it was a mistake of MS to do that.

Or they could just forget about that, and assume everyone who wants the game will just have to buy the HD (if it's required.)  I'm guessing if the game's popular/big enough, the people buying it will have the HD already.

And all that could just also be a ploy to make people buy the HD.  More money for MS.

[AtomSmasher]

Or they could just forget about that, and assume everyone who wants the game will just have to buy the HD (if it's required.)  I'm guessing if the game's popular/big enough, the people buying it will have the HD already.

And all that could just also be a ploy to make people buy the HD.  More money for MS.

because that worked so well with the PS2 hard drive and Final Fantasy XI     Ok, I guess it technically was a success in Japan, but it pretty much flopped in America (the majority of American players are on PCs).   And since no other game on the ps2 required a harddrive, I think its safe to say that it wasn't much of a success (the harddrive, not FFXI).

[RTSDaddy2]

SEE Y'ALL IN LINE - I'm planning to get one on launch day.  Never done anything this crazy for a game console in my life, but this is our Christmas (wife and I) gift to each other.  We've been waiting patiently, and the more I see and hear as "reviewers" write their posts, the harder it is to wait for Sunday morning to arrive!

BTW...rumors are out online, if you haven't seen them, that Sony is not shipping enough PS3's to EB / GameStop - they are only covering 60 percent of the pre-orders.  Now personally, THAT would tick me off...to have read that my order might stay in Japan to meet the demand there, instead of coming to me after I paid my money for it?!?

[AlanS17]

BTW...rumors are out online, if you haven't seen them, that Sony is not shipping enough PS3's to EB / GameStop - they are only covering 60 percent of the pre-orders.  Now personally, THAT would tick me off...to have read that my order might stay in Japan to meet the demand there, instead of coming to me after I paid my money for it?!?

I just read straight from GameStop that it looks like they're stalling online orders in an attempt to be able to fill in-store orders.

Back in topic, I already have my Wii pre-ordered at GameStop.

[RecycledPast]

I plan on getting a Wii on launch, if I get my Target 10% off coupon this week, otherwise I'll have to wait a few days and hope they don't sell out.
I really wish they wouldn't have included the game and sold the system for $199.

I don't buy a lot of games so if Nintendo only puts out 2-3 perfect games a year I'm fine.  Personally I thought they did a great job with the GC, Animal crossing, Zelda, Paper Mario, & Pikmin was all I owned.

I did own a Xbox, PS2, GC, & GBA so 2-3 games a system a year = enough good games for me, but probably not enough to make them much $$$.

My brother gave me a 360, otherwise I would have waited another year to get one when they drop the price.   I don't have an HDtv so I don't think the system is worth $400 yet.

My personal motto is to never pay full price.

[hypernova]

We've been waiting patiently, and the more I see and hear as "reviewers" write their posts, the harder it is to wait for Sunday morning to arrive!

You could always freeze yourself, and have a friend wake you up.

[hypernova]

Did anyone get a Wal Mart ad this past Sunday?  They were advertising that if you bought it opening day, they would throw in a controller set (Nunchuk AND remote) for FREE!  If you weren't aware of this, check your local ads!!!

[AlanS17]

I wonder what the lines are gonna look like. And I wonder what the ebay resale value will be considering they may not even be expecting much of a shortage.

If I ccould wait in line for a few hours and sell this thing for $500 or $600, that's still totally worth it.

(I already have one for personal use on pre-order at GameStop.)

[AtomSmasher]

Did anyone get a Wal Mart ad this past Sunday?  They were advertising that if you bought it opening day, they would throw in a controller set (Nunchuk AND remote) for FREE!  If you weren't aware of this, check your local ads!!!

I just checked my local ads and they're not doing that deal here.

[MustardTent]

Trying to determine what is the best place to get a wii.  My BestBuy and Circuit City are not doing midnight openings.  Neither is target or Toys'R'Us.  Only place doing it is a store called Meijer, which is like a target. 

Since Target opens first on Sunday, I'm guessing that's a good place to be...but I'm sure BestBuy will have more units.  So maybe since they're open second it's a better shot?

I'm torn.

[RTSDaddy2]

I'll second MustardTent.

No one around me is doing a midnight sale either.  Wal-Mart opens first at 7 am (closest to me) and they're saying be there about midnight, but it's supposed to be freezing here in the sunny south.  Best Buy will follow at 9 AM.  I checked out the line for the PS3 at our local BB and it was very small, but of course they were only getting a few of those.

So what do y'all think?  Try Wally world first then BB?  Or just go hang at BB?

[shmokes]

My recommendation is patience.  Waiting overnight in the freezing cold is miserable.  It's at least justifiable when you're talking about a PS3 or Xbox 360, where shortages mean that if you don't camp at launch time you probably can't get one for months, or their shortages make them an attractive Ebay business opportunity.  But missing out on the Wii launch means nothing more than a few days without a Wii.  The initial launch numbers will take care of most the diehards.  My little brother works at Target.  Target got 6 PS3s.  He says they already have an enormous stack of Wiis in the back - he guesses, based on the size of the stack, that there are between 60 - 80.  The local Best Buy, just down the road from Target, which got 26 PS3s, will probably have a lot more Wiis than Target too.

Five days before the Wii came out you got on just fine without one.  Just pretend that the Wii is going to launch on Thanksgiving day instead of this Sunday and head out to your local stores then.  I'd put money on Nintendo making sure to get more shipments out to retailers in time for Black Friday. 

[AlanS17]

Two kids were camping out in front of target this morning to get a Wii. I figured that they wouldn't believe me even if I told them to come back later.

I think if you get in line somewhere 3 hours ahead of time you ought to be fine just about anywhere (but that's pure speculation).

People might be camping just because they saw what happened with the PS3 and don't realize the Wii is more readily available.

[RTSDaddy2]

I'll take that advice but head out a bit sooner, maybe 6 hours.  I'm going to try Wal Mart first, but have BB as an option later if needed.

 I'm sort of the same suspicions Alan, actually.  Plus, I don't think folks down this way are quite into new consoles as they are in other parts of the country...there's just no sense of urgency down here that I can tell, so I sort of expect it to be relatively easy to get one, but taking no chances. Also the area where I live seems to be more a Sony area, so it may be no issue whatsoever.

Saw the Wii in action today at a local EB kiosk.  I cannot wait to get my hands on one of those...it just looks like too much fun!  The HD cable was attached...and with that, the graphics look pretty sharp.   

Also saw the PS3 sitting next to it...yeah, the graphics are good.  I guess I'm just not a hardcore gamer - there's nothing on the PS1, PS2 or PS3 that really appeals to my family and I save Spyro and maybe Kingdom Hearts...no real need to put money in to one then for two or three games, especially with such a hefty price tag.

At any way, back on topic- will be heading out within the next three hours in hope of finding a place to sit and wait for 12:01 to hit...wiish me luck!

[AtomSmasher]

I'll take that advice but head out a bit sooner, maybe 6 hours.  I'm going to try Wal Mart first, but have BB as an option later if needed.

I've mentioned it before, but just in case you missed it, here it is again.  Toys R Us is the offical launch partner of Wii and should be getting more units per store then anywhere else.  If I remember right, my local Toys R Us is supposed to be getting around 250 Wii's, while the Walmarts and Best Buys are getting between 60 and 120 units.  If you don't get one at Walmarts midnight launch (assuming your walmart is open at midnight), then Toys R Us should be your next stop.

edit* I just checked http://www.ps3seeker.com/wii/  and it turns out initial estimations were wrong.  My Toys R Us is supposed to get 84 while the best buys, targets, and walmarts are getting around 60 each.

[RTSDaddy2]

I've been keeping an eye on the numbers all week with that link Atom, but I appreciate your post.  I had seen it and  haven't rules out TRU completely, but when I spoke to my store the other day they told me all they got in was enough to fill their pre-orders.  As BB did not do preorders, might be a pretty good place to check second.  Thanks for the reminder though!

One other thing I should keep in mind - there are at least three walmarts, three BB, three TRU, and three Targets within 7 miles of my house.  What are the odds of ALL of them selling out before I can get to the next one?

I told my wife though - if I get to Walmart tonight and am even 20th in line, she might as well not expect to see me until tomorrow morning.  I won't be home if I find a spot!

[AlanS17]

GameStop is fulfilling their Wii pre-orders starting at midnight tonight (or at least the one near me is).

I pre-ordered and then handed off the receipt to my brother so he could get it for me for Christmas. I figure I did the hard stuff. All he has to do is shown up.

So even though we can be some of the first in the country to get it, I still won't be able to play it til December 25th. 

[namedos]

Got my Wii yesterday and it is an absolute blast to play.  Got a buddy that works at Nintendo so I was able to pick one up early.  Madden 07 is unbelievable.  Wii Sports is pretty good, with Tennis and Golf our favorites so far.  Heck my wife is even enjoying it.  Way to go Nintendo!

[deadmoney5]

For all the Playstation fans and how much more popular the ps2 was over the gamecube i still can't find a reason why it was loved over the GC.

probably because it had a lot more better games...

but to each his own...I dont really see the appeal of the Wii either...

and I don't have a 360 OR a PS3

I dont have an HD tv so it wouldnt be worth for me yet

[hypernova]

So even though we can be some of the first in the country to get it, I still won't be able to play it til December 25th.

I'm in the same boat.  I'll be waiting in line for just 2 hours.  I plan on getting to Wal Mart in about an hour now (it's open 24 hours.)  Wife said she saw a sign earlier today near the front telling people where to form a line.  There was none, at around noon.  While unconfirmed, that link has been saying my WM is getting 53.  Based on the "line" of the PS3, I think I should be fine, but the free controller is a slight wild card.

I just checked my local ads and they're not doing that deal here.

While our printed version DID show the deal, the online version is not listing it.  I suggest to check with your store.  It is listed in there in ours.  We double checked to make sure, because Target was offering an extra nunchuk if you bought an extra remote, but WM offered the entire set with the system.  We conveniently threw it away (d'oh,) but we know it was there.  They usually have those ads near the front of the store on a desk, or maybe customer service has some.

Edit:  Well, hell, I don't know what to think now.  Maybe I was just reading something wrong.  I would've bet my life on reading that an additional set of remote/nunchuk was going to be thrown in if you bought it on launch day.  Plus, the online Target ads don't show anything related to the Wii, and I DO bet my life that it WAS advertised in Sunday's ads.  We'll see.

I'll write in as soon as I get home about what to expect.  (Should be before 12:45.)

[AtomSmasher]

I just checked my local ads and they're not doing that deal here.

While our printed version DID show the deal, the online version is not listing it.  I suggest to check with your store.  It is listed in there in ours.  We double checked to make sure, because Target was offering an extra nunchuk if you bought an extra remote, but WM offered the entire set with the system.  We conveniently threw it away (d'oh,) but we know it was there.  They usually have those ads near the front of the store on a desk, or maybe customer service has some.

Edit:  Well, hell, I don't know what to think now.  Maybe I was just reading something wrong.  I would've bet my life on reading that an additional set of remote/nunchuk was going to be thrown in if you bought it on launch day.  We'll see.

I'll write in as soon as I get home about what to expect.  (Should be before 12:45.)

Hmm, I wasn't planning on getting a Wii tonight (I'm getting it for Christmas, so no hurry), if a free remote and nunchuck come with it, then I probably will get it tonight.  I'll swing by Walmart and take a look at their ad.  If it is like you say, then you won't hear back from me until tommorrow

[hypernova]

Wow.  If this is any indication, Nintendo is going to be taking back some of that market share from Sony and MS.

Got there a little after 10 pm, and all units were already accounted for.  Not sure how many exactly, but there was a healthy amount of people loitering around the electronics.  I'd say it was close to the number that site was suggesting they'll get.  Also checked Meijer (which is actually more like a Super Wal Mart) and they were all accounted for as well.

I could easily check other WM and such, but I imagine it'll be the same story, because those stores are located in larger (and richer) population zones.

I may check via phone tomorrow morning about 11 am for Best Buy and Target to see if they're sold out.  I'm not sitting outside for hours on end waiting for them to open, especially when I'm not playing it until Christmas, and all reports indicate there'll be a few more shipments before then.

Good luck to all trying to get one tomorrow!

[hypernova]

And I'm almost certain that they had an ad in the paper.  What makes me so sure is the fact that it said you HAD to buy it on the 19th to get the freebies.

[alomar721]

called target tonight they are having 39 units best buy has roughly 60. circuit city has 19. meijers laughed at me and so did walmart. ebgames told me that they only had enough to fill pre-orders. the lady told me that they should be getting shipments each week no total. i might go early before work. if not will get one in a couple of weeks then.

[AtomSmasher]

I stopped by walmart and they didn't have the free remote deal, not that it would of mattered since there was a huge line waiting with several camping tents towards the front of the line.  I guess a bunch of people have been waiting a day or two there and there were easily 60 people which would of accounted for their entire stock. 

If the entire first million of Wii's is sold in the first hour they're available, then Nintendo may be back in the #1 console spot before too long.  Good times.

[ImaTest]

I took a ride around at about 1am to see what the lines were like, and was surprised at how few people I saw.

10 or so at Best buy, maybe 20 at Walmart, 20 or so cars at Target (no one was even bothering sitting near the doors), and one solitary car at circuit city.

I'm sure it'll be much worse in the morning, but I was surprised.

[AlanS17]

There were a lot of campers here in the Dallas area at 1am as I was headed home for the night - more than I was expecting. I think a lot of that is fallout from the whole PS3 phenomenon. I think people either expect it to be as much of a demand as the PS3 or they got in line earlier since they missed on the PS3.

[tommy]

I ended up not getting one yet. 

I'll have to settle for a 360 till they are more abundant.

[AtomSmasher]

I ended up not getting one yet. 

I'll have to settle for a 360 till they are more abundant.

I doubt you'll have to wait long.  I'd call Best buy or Toys R Us on Wed or Thurs and see when their next shipment is coming in (I bet its no later then Friday).

[tommy]

I really have to say that after playing the Wii and using the new motion controler anyother game console with a regular controler is not worth playing anymore.

I can deal with gamecube graphics even though the PS3 looks a hell of alot better, i just can't see holding a controler still after i played the Wii.

If only the PS3 had the Wii-mote gaming would be perfect. If only Nintendo made the best system they could with todays hardware. 

[ChadTower]

I was at Gamestop last night and a kid tried to run out of the store with their display Wii controller.  He fell down and didn't make it.  I almost wet my pants laughing.

[AlanS17]

I was at Gamestop last night and a kid tried to run out of the store with their display Wii controller.  He fell down and didn't make it.  I almost wet my pants laughing.

LOL that's awesome. They're supposed to take an ID or something from people who want to play. That way nobody can bail. Sounds like someone screwed up.

[ChadTower]

If he just walked like a regular person he would have been 50 yards out the door before anyone noticed.  Everyone noticed a kid standing by the front door make a dash for it, fall on his head, and get grabbed by the dude that was now blocking the door.   

[Howard_Casto]

If only the PS3 had the Wii-mote gaming would be perfect. If only Nintendo made the best system they could with todays hardware. 

No it wouldn't because it's a playstation and therfore is crap.  Wii has 30 launch titles around 20 of which are really good.  The ps3 has around 10 launch titles, one of which is playable.  I rest my case on that one.  Plus it's 600 bucks.  Let me repeat that, it's 600 bucks.  Remember the neogeo and jaguar?  They were over-priced like that and we all know how long they lasted. 

The perfect pairing would be microsoft and nintendo, with nintendo designing the software exclusively.  M$ at least tries to do new stuff with their online experience and their push to make a console more like a pc.  While sony on the other hand copies everyone else and tries to cram their crappy media formats down everyones throats hoping no one will notice that they don't, nor never had any fun games to play on any of their systems save some exclusive third party contracts (which they have now lost) if they throw a bunch of random horsepower at the thing and make sure the cars in ridge racer 7 (yawn) are extra shiny at launch. 

Going back to my failure examples the neogeo came out during the time of the super nes but never caught on after it's initial release.  Neogeo offered far more horsepower, but only snk games took advantage of it and even then the games only looked slighty better than those on the snes.  On top of that most of the games weren't all that good and the system cost twice as much as the snes.  Is this sounding familair? It's basically the situation sony is in now vs the 360.  The only difference being that sony had a loyal fan base, which got a lot of fanboys to go out and buy the system even though the games don't look all that great and next to none of them are any fun.  I'm pretty sure the casual gamer and average consumer on the other hand, have pretty much abandoned sony at this point.  The only thing that kept em in business in the past were exclusive titles which they now don't have.

On the other hand m$ keeps pushing the online experience and nintendo as usual, just sticks to making great games and coming out with new ways to interact with those games. 

So long story short... no nintendo and sony would be a match made in hell. 

Remember the original ps1 came out of nintendo firing sony because nintendo didn't they their quality was up to par.  Of course they were essentially right but the thing sold anyway because the n64 still used carts.  But hey who cares about making games actually playable with no load times when you can have virtually unplayble games with really spiffy cut-scenes?  As usual nintendo knew better than the public on that one but the damage was already done. 

[shmokes]

Wii has 30 launch titles around 20 of which are really good. 

Come now . . . the actual number of really good titles is 1.  Then there are about 2 or 3 good ones like Monkey Ball and Rayman.  Then there are a few decent ones like Call of Duty.  And a bunch of sucky ones.

Of course they were essentially right but the thing sold anyway because the n64 still used carts.  But hey who cares about making games actually playable with no load times when you can have virtually unplayble games with really spiffy cut-scenes?  As usual nintendo knew better than the public on that one but the damage was already done. 

Speaking of forcing a proprietary format on people . . .

Consumers weren't wrong.  Consumers didn't choose CDs over cartridges.  Consumers chose games over lack of games.  Developers/Publishers chose CDs over cartridges.  The market wanted CDs because cartridges were so damned risky by comparison (not to mention had severe space limitations).  When Akklaim put in an order for a 1 million cartridges to meet expected demand for a game they thought would sell well due to a movie license, they were stuck with 700,000 unsold cartridges when it turned out that the public isn't as dumb as they thought and it takes more than a license alone to create a blockbuster.  700,000 unsold cartridges at $30 a pop is a lot of ---smurfing--- money to swallow, especially when the same game for the Playstation only set them back a few dollars apiece.  Anyway, load times is the story Nintendo gave you.  They stuck with cartridges because manufacturing cartridges for third parties was an enormously profitable business for them and they didn't want to lose it.  Third parties told Nintendo that cartridges were just too risky a business for them and Nintendo told the developers to shut up and take their medicine.  And there was Sony, waiting with open arms.

[Howard_Casto]

Wii has 30 launch titles around 20 of which are really good. 

Come now . . . the actual number of really good titles is 1.  Then there are about 2 or 3 good ones like Monkey Ball and Rayman.  Then there are a few decent ones like Call of Duty.  And a bunch of sucky ones.

Of course they were essentially right but the thing sold anyway because the n64 still used carts.  But hey who cares about making games actually playable with no load times when you can have virtually unplayble games with really spiffy cut-scenes?  As usual nintendo knew better than the public on that one but the damage was already done. 

Speaking of forcing a proprietary format on people . . .

Consumers weren't wrong.  Consumers didn't choose CDs over cartridges.  Consumers chose games over lack of games.  Developers/Publishers chose CDs over cartridges.  The market wanted CDs because cartridges were so damned risky by comparison (not to mention had severe space limitations).  When Akklaim put in an order for a 1 million cartridges to meet expected demand for a game they thought would sell well due to a movie license, they were stuck with 700,000 unsold cartridges when it turned out that the public isn't as dumb as they thought and it takes more than a license alone to create a blockbuster.  700,000 unsold cartridges at $30 a pop is a lot of ---smurfing--- money to swallow, especially when the same game for the Playstation only set them back a few dollars apiece.  Anyway, load times is the story Nintendo gave you.  They stuck with cartridges because manufacturing cartridges for third parties was an enormously profitable business for them and they didn't want to lose it.  Third parties told Nintendo that cartridges were just too risky a business for them and Nintendo told the developers to shut up and take their medicine.  And there was Sony, waiting with open arms.

Actually call of duty would be one of the one's I put in the sucky category.  It's a generic fps and therofore unoriginal and should die a quick death. No I do not exaggerate, most of the wii games are really good.  You have to understand though, that half of them are for kids.  I might not care for sponge bob and avatar, but my little cousin sure likes it.    Actually I kind of do like spongebob and avatar but that's another story. 

The bad games would fall along the lines of red steel and call of duty, with red steel being one of the few games that totally botched the control scheme and call of duty just being the third of a very typical fps that has only sold copies because of it's graphics, and this becomes apparent on the wii seeing as it is stripped of these.  Other bad ones would include rampage (same game yet again) the new gt game and a few that slip my mind. 


You are right carts were more expensive, that was the point.  It's a real simple way to implement quality control.  The high cost made it impossible for "budget" titles to be made, meaning only high-quality product would be released.  In those rare instances when a game did bomb (see superman 64) developers either radically changed their direction on the next title or quit making games for the console. Either way the consumer got the highest ratio of good games to bad games possible as a result. Of course there were more games on the psx, because they were cheaper to make, but 80% of those games were crap.  On the other hand 80% of the games on the n64 were really good.

See the psx was never really powerful enough to do proper 3d graphics, but the n64 was.  If you look at the typical n64 game versus the typical ps1 game, the n64 game looks waaaaaaay better.  Mind you the  psx game had a lot of textures, but the meshs were better on the n64 and the games ran at a higher fps.  The lack of a cd drive kept third party developers from jumping on the very bad trend of making a game with a lot of textures and cut scenes but with poor meshs and framerates. Much like now (with the 360 and ps3) it was a time when games were getting sold based on how they looked rather than how they played (though in this instance the look was mostly fmv sequences), thankfully nintendo was always there with the gameplay while the rest of the gaming world lost it's mind.  Also thankfully, they are here to save us again. 

I'm losing count again how many times has nintendo single-handedly saved the gaming industy  2 times or 3? 

Oh and the load times were indeed real.  Maybe you don't remember waiting 5 minutes for a level to load, but I do.  Maybe you don't remember playing a crippled version of mk trilogy, where you had to select which characters shang could morph into but I do.  Cd players in consoles at that point were 1X, far too slow to be effective for the bloated games released for the psx. 

[shmokes]

Oh, the load times were real.  And they sucked (though were never anything like 5 minutes). 

I simply mean that consumers didn't choose CDs over cartridges, or load times over the lack thereof (not directly or consciously anyway).  Consumers chose the console with the best library.  You can, of course, rail on PS1 games as being nothing but FMV fests, but this is pretty far from the truth.  Obviously this problem did exist, but not exclusively.  PS1 gave us Tony Hawk, Parappa the Rapper, Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Tekken (which is a ---smurfing--- retarded game, but other people seem to love it  ), Twisted Metal, Wipeout, Fear Effect, NFL Gameday, Dance Dance Revolution, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot (another retarded game, but what are you gonna do?). Tenchu, Final Fantasy VII and Tactics, Medal of Honor, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Syphon filter, Grandia, Ape Escape, Silent Hill, Gran Turismo.

Seriously, I could go on.  This list isn't anything like complete.  Are any of these games as good as Zelda: TOoT or Mario 64?  No way.  But there were a lot of great games for PS1.  Significantly more than N64.  You can make a (probably spurious) argument that N64 had a higher ratio of good games to bad games.  This is almost certainly not true, but the only thing that would really give you if it were true is a better chance of picking a good game from the rental store when you are blindfolded.  If N64 only had 10 games total in its lifetime and 7 of them were great they'd have a 7/10 ratio, but I'd still rather the system that had 1000 games made for it with only a 2/10 ratio of great vs. bad games since that would give me 200 great games to choose from and I can easily ignore the other 800.  PS1 had a much more diverse library that appealed to a broader demographic and they simply had more good games.

It is the better library that consumers chose.  They would have chose the console that used punch cards as a storage medium if that was the one that had the most great games.  Playstation was simply the console with the most great games.  This isn't because the PS1 was a better console.  It was clearly inferior to the N64 in virtually every respect.  But Nintendo made developing for the Playstation a no-brainer for third parties so that's what they did.

By the way, you can pretty much copy and paste everything I just said but substitute N64 with Gamecube and PS1 with PS2.  The scenario played itself out again.  Gamecube's hardware is superior in almost every way.  Gamecube's controller is the greatest gamepad ever made, while the PS2 is still using a souped up SNES controller with horribly placed tacked on analog sticks.  Gamecube had the Nintendo exclusives which were, as usual, the greatest games of the generation and among the greatest games of all time.  But there were just a few of them and PS2, once again, had a far bigger library and, more to the point, had a far bigger selection of great games.

[AlanS17]

For what it's worth, the last Nintendo console I owned was the Super NES. The N64 controller was retarded, and my favorite game publisher (Squaresoft) moved over to exclusively developing for the PS1.

I really wanted a Game Cube, but I knew I'd only be buying it for the first-party titles like Super Smash Brothers and Mario kart. It just didn't have the expansive library of exclusive game titles the the PS2 had (even though Square-Enix did start making games for it again). All the cross-platform games were just better on the PS2.

That being said, I'm getting a new Wii for Christmas, and I'm excited about it. I probably won't own a PS3 for a very long time, but that's mostly because of cost (and I just got an XBOX 360).

[tommy]

If only the PS3 had the Wii-mote gaming would be perfect. If only Nintendo made the best system they could with todays hardware. 

No it wouldn't because it's a playstation and therfore is crap. 

I guess what i was really getting at was a better looking console graphically then the Wii. As i've said Nintendo could have made a much better console and chose to just kinda not really try hard. The new controls are a home run in my book, but why not still compete with the rest in graphics?

If the Wii had PS3 or even 360 graphics i would gladly pay $600.00, Nintendo would have blown away the rest hands down, if they aren't already.

[ChadTower]

One of their engineering requirements was to keep it at about $250.  What you're describing just wouldn't meet that requirement.