Nintendo Wii

[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.