Reports of Sony's imminent demise were greatly exaggerated . . .

[shmokes]

Is anybody still operating under the assumption that the PS3 is going to flop?  In spite of Nintendo's impressive success, I still think that the PS3 will very likely end up outselling the Wii (though I wouldn't be surprised if the Wii is always more profitable).  But things are looking really bright for Sony right now, IMO.  Mario, Zelda and Metroid are out, as are Halo, Bioshock, Gears of War and Mass Effect.  That means that those companies have already put down their ace cards.  Sony, on the other hand, still has Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, God of War 3, LittleBigPlanet, Final Fantasy XIII and Playstation Home coming up.  And, with the recent pricedrop, the machine is finally selling in respectable numbers. 

I predict that Sony will even things up with Microsoft by the end of 2008, just as Nintendo has already done.  If Sony manages to surpass Nintendo, however, it probably won't happen until at least 2009, maybe 2010.  But by that time, Sony will have left Microsoft well behind I think.

[SavannahLion]

At this point in the game GoW3 would be the only reason I would consider even purchasing a PS3.

The price drop is good. The feature loss and the multiple pricing tiers is not. Did you read Gabe's article about Unreal on the PS3 the other day?. He smacked the problem right on the nail when he wrote (my emphasis):

Remember: if you want to use mods on your PS3, it's easy! Just install Linux on your music player. Look, I'm sorry if your scenario is so tangled that you can't even express it yourself in interviews. What type of external storage you need to use isn't even my concern, so the ability to use Jump Drives doesn't speak to the issue. The fact of the matter is that you can't play mods without additional hardware, or media, or both. Period. The problem is simply more substantial on some models than others. The reality is that there are still many people surprised to learn the actual parameters of your product's much-touted mod support.

And yeah, I know about Mutators. I doubt very seriously that Mutators are what comes to mind when people think about "mods." You don't want the liability, and you don't want to host, you don't want to moderate, and Sony's "Open Platform" is apparently only semipermeable, so owners of the more costly Playstation 3 version get a diminished experience. 

I believe I must be misinterpreting this. So not only does one have to worry about which PS3 version to get, consumers have to worry that getting the most expensive version will actually be a less fulfilling experience than the cheap model?

This is a HUGE difference from the 360 lineup where getting the more expensive model will get you a (more or less) more fulfilling product and it's nothing like previous models like the PS2 vs the Slimline where a very clear feature loss is incurred. I find that Sony PS3 marketing model is borderline ethical when consumers need to use a feature table to figure what model to purchase 

[versapak]

Trying to justify a PS3 purchase?






As long as the price keeps falling I have no doubt Sony will at least do ok with the PS3.

As it is though... Even the titles you mention won't really be drawing me to the PS3 at its current price point. Though it certainly has reached a much more attractive price already, it just isn't attractive enough being that I already have 2 Xbox 360's.

[shmokes]

Not justify.  Not necessary.  Seeing as I don't already have  a 360, I'd buy a PS3 today given the disposable income.  Unfortunately I don't have extra money these days.  PS3 is probably a 2009 purchase for me.  I'm just interpreting writing on the wall.  I could be wrong, but I doubt it.  Sony will pass MS in worldwide sales, and probably even in North American sales.

[DaveMMR]

Is anybody still operating under the assumption that the PS3 is going to flop?  In spite of Nintendo's impressive success, I still think that the PS3 will very likely end up outselling the Wii (though I wouldn't be surprised if the Wii is always more profitable). 

Don't be surprised.  Even if Nintendo were to sell exactly one Wii and Sony were to move 10 million PS3's, Nintendo would still have been more profitable since Sony loses money on each system sold.

I don't think the PS3 will "flop" as you put it, but instead they will find themselves failing in a relative sense since their previous two systems were at the top for so long.  I think Sony got a little too cocky with their popularity and figured they can release anything, however bloated and overpriced and people would be rushing to pick it up.  But their success was attributed partly to casual gamer's appeal, with their wide array of game selection and simple controls.  By releasing an expensive machine, they're only attracting the serious gamer who budgets in game hardware the same way we would budget food shopping.

Meanwhile, Nintendo struck at the right time.  For the first time in over a decade, they've made all the right decisions: a system that appeals to the whole family (including women), a low price-point, access to 4 previous generations of Nintendo classics (plus Genesis and TG-16), either through download or GC backwards compatibility, a novel control-scheme that works fairly well, and games that are just downright fun.

On the sidelines you have XBox 360 that fills the needs of the more serious gamer with much more anticipated exclusives, high-quality graphics comparable to the PS3 and a lower price than the PS3. 

As for PS3's "ace cards" - it may be too little, too late.  By the time they finally release these, many people already have their Wii's and Xbox360s since they didn't want to wait two years for these long promised "gems". 

I don't think any of this will kill the PS brand, but they've got to learn from their mistakes on the PS4 if they hope to ever be number one again.   I may buy a PS3 in the future, but only when it's cheap enough to make it worthwhile to play those one or two exclusive games.  In the meantime, my money's going towards Wii software and an Xbox 360.

[pointdablame]

I follow and agree with most of what you said shmokes until you get to this part --

But things are looking really bright for Sony right now, IMO.  Mario, Zelda and Metroid are out, as are Halo, Bioshock, Gears of War and Mass Effect.  That means that those companies have already put down their ace cards.

Things are looking up because they will have good games sometime in the future?  Meanwhile the 2 competing platforms have great games NOW, and that's a downside for them?  I just can't buy that.

I also don't buy that the competition has "put down their ace cards" which seems to imply that Nintendo and MS are now done with releasing great games this generation.  The bottom line is Nintendo and MS already have killer app software for their systems, and PS3 is only now seeing one or two games that you could even think of lumping into that category.  And when all those PS3 games do come out, Nintendo and MS will be putting out games as well... its not like they will be sitting on their hands waiting for the money trucks to come in because they have a few great games out.

I know what you are saying, but its a fairly foolish way to say it.  I certainly don't think the PS3 will "flop" but I don't think they'll trounce Nintendo and MS in the next year because of the games you mention.  They will sell systems though (and may finally get me to buy a PS3).

[Zero_Hour]

I just picked up a PS3, after much debate with myself over getting it or a 360.

Judging by the shelves at the stores. I'm still in the minority, as I counted a handfull of 360 Halo editions , absolutely 0 Wii's (no surprise there) and an ample supply of 80 and 40 GB PS3's on the shelf. This was Dec. 23'rd btw so I don't think the stock on the shelves was going to change significantly.

My decision to get a PS3 was based largely on Drakes Fortune, which was quite good, and future promise of Gran Turismo goodness, which is the franchise that ultimately got me to pick up my previous Sony consoles. If Turismo would have moved to the MS box, I would certainly be talking about how I just picked up a 360 in anticipation of it.

While Sony's demise may have been exaggerated, I don't think there is any doubt that they are no longer the undisputed leader in the console wars. Nintendo has pretty much tapped into markets that the other 2 players have completely ignored, and aside from Japan, MS has done pretty well with their marketshare, and has a deep library, and well regarded online service.

Sony will be happy to survive this generation of hardware, but will really need to take a hard look at how it does things if it wants to jump back to it's former position at the top of the heap. The First year of the PS3 has done more to harm their rep than help it. It will take more than Solid Snake and fast cars to fix it.

I am actually quite happy with my purchase, but I don't think I'm an indicator of the tide turning for Sony any time soon. There are a lot of people who will buy consoles for a single franchise (see the xbox 360's hardware sales spike when Halo 3 launched), but not enough to make up the numbers between Sony and its competitors.

[tommy]

Can anybody with both a 360 and PS3 say with any certainty that the PS3 has better looking graphics than the 360 or is it really too close to call?

[pointdablame]

Can anybody with both a 360 and PS3 say with any certainty that the PS3 has better looking graphics than the 360 or is it really too close to call?

It depends on the game.  Some multiplatform games are a complete wash and some look better on one console or another.  Overall I'd say the PS3 is capable of better graphics, but in today's world, its not a huge, huge difference (though there are always some games that really look great on one over the other)

For disclosure, I don't own a PS3.

[tommy]

I'm sure some of the games that were made to take full advantage or the most advantage of each console might both look pretty good on both consoles. I have a feeling as more time goes by and more is learned about how to dev for the PS3 it will look at least 1/4 better than the 360. If you can measure that 1/4 is some way just by looking at it.

[shmokes]

C'mon.  You know what I mean about ace cards.  Of course there will always be good games being released for every system.  But how many Super Marios do we get on on each console?  Usually one.  How many Zeldas?  Usually one.  How many Halos?  Exactly one since Microsoft lost Bungie. 

The bottom line is Nintendo and MS already have killer app software for their systems, and PS3 is only now seeing one or two games that you could even think of lumping into that category. 

Are you sure the bottom line is what you think it is?  Metacritic lists 39 PS3 games with a score of 8.0 or above.  The Wii sports a whopping 12 (Wii has 4 games with 9.0 or above while PS3 has only 3). 

You've got Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank Future, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Virtua Fighter 5, Unreal Tournament III, Call of Duty 4, Rock Band, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Folklore, Guitar Hero III, MotorStorm, etc.  A few of those are multiplatform, but most are exclusives.  At any rate, exclusive or not, PS3's lineup is not as weak as you are portraying it.  They've got big guns coming, but their 2007 lineup ain't bad.  Depending how you look at it, it's likely stronger than Wii's (it clearly doesn't touch the 360's library yet).

So, while Nintendo and MS will continue to release games right alongside Sony, I repeat, they have played most their Ace cards and Sony's still got most their best in development.  Add to that the continued strength of the Playstation brand and you have some pretty strong indicators that Sony's future is pretty bright.  Their sales have already skyrocketed with the drop to $399.  I assume they'll drop another $100-$150 by 2008 holiday season.  They also have much stronger support from Japanese developers than Microsoft. 

Nintendo, I think, played just about everything right except their hardware.  It's too weak.  They can't stay on top with it, IMO.  It also doesn't help that the motion sensors are pretty shoddy.  If they'd released at $299 (the cost of a core Xbox 360 at launch) and had graphic capabilities close to 360 I think they'd have an overall winner, but that ain't the case.  Actually, I'm speaking too strongly.  I think that's likely not the case, but their early lead is going to be pretty big so I suppose it might end up being insurmountable.  I doubt it, but maybe.

In any case, if Sony doesn't end up in the number one spot (albeit with a MUCH smaller lead than the previous two generations) they will at least beat Microsoft and they will still have won in terms of being the gamer's system rather than the casual gamer's system.

[tommy]

What Zelda game has come out for the Wii that was made especially for the Wii, shmokes?

None. No Ace in the hole yet.

[somunny]

I've also been thinking about picking up a PS3 (mostly for Drake's Fortune), but the 60GB model is the only one I'm interested in due to it being the most backward compatible.

[shmokes]

No . . . we'll likely get a Zelda made just for the Wii.  Not any time soon, but presumably (and for god's sake, hopefully) we'll get it.  And it'll be freaking awesome.  We'll also get Animal Crossing, which will no doubt be phenomenal.  Who knows what else?  Maybe a Kid Icarus (doubtful); maybe something brand new.  Certainly a Mariokart, which will at least be good fun, if not spectacular.  But what will the third parties give us?  Quick and dirty PS2 ports?  New games released on both the Wii and PS2, i.e., built around a standard gamepad?  With the exception of Trauma Center (a port) and Zack and Wiki, and maybe Raving Rabids, third parties have given us practically nothing but ---smurfing--- trash.  Junk.  Not-even-worth-a-rental - junk.  Nintendo can't develop every game for the system, Tommy.  They can only make a few.  Don't get me wrong; they are damned prolific, but we get a few titles a year out of them.  Period.  And not all of them are great.  Some are just Mario Party 8 or whatever number we're on now.

It takes more than Nintendo to make a killer software library.  There's no better developer to have in your corner than Nintendo, but they can't do it alone.

[tommy]

We still need a great Resident Evil game, and I've heard a long, long time ago that we will see a Punch Out game of some sort, but who knows.

[SavannahLion]

How many Halos?  Exactly one since Microsoft lost Bungie.

Incorrect. Microsoft has retained minority ownership in Bungie and they retained Halo IP rights. We'll very likely see more Halo games, won't begin to guess if Bungie will continue making Halo games though.

Nintendo, I think, played just about everything right except their hardware.  It's too weak.  They can't stay on top with it, IMO.

It's really a matter of opinion there. You are correct that the Wii hardware is weaker compared to the other two. But saying Nintendo can't stay on top of it is patently false. If anything, Nintendo has proven time and time again that they are the King of marketing hardware with deficiencies. I can't tell you how many times SNES slowdown pissed the hell out of me in intense games despite the more capable hardware, a console that still invokes intense debates of Genesis vs SNES. The N64 is generally regarded as less capable hardware in the light of the PSX, yet is still a highly regarded console by gamers. And how could anyone forget the incredible runaway success of the Gameboy series that effectively squashed every single competitor for nearly two decades. A family of handhelds whose only real competition may be a handheld appearing now? I'd say Nintendo has done a pretty good job of marketing most of their consoles.

[shmokes]

Is there a raised-eyebrow smiley?  Do you really think that Halo would still be Halo in the hands of someone other than Bungie?  It's like when Pixar and Disney were breaking up and Disney said, "Well, we own the Toy Story property and we're making Toy Story 3 without you."  Everybody knows it would have been awful.  When Disney then bought Pixar and Pixar became head of Disney's animation studios, the first thing they did was cancel the Toy Story 3 project.  Microsoft can have someone make Halo 4.  They can make Halo 10.  They can do whatever they want with their IP.  But it's not going to be Halo like we know Halo.  Bungie does that.

On your second point . . . well, I disagree I suppose.  SNES was more capable than Genesis.  The Genesis had a faster processor, but the SNES had a dedicated sound chip, far more capable graphics hardware, three times as much RAM (not to mention a FAR better controller).  I don't know off-hand about the Playstation, but I always thought the only thing it had on the N64 was storage.  In fact it was years and years before Spyro came out and showed that Playstation could do something approaching Super Mario 64.  As for the Gameboy, that was all about the batteries, and the portable market is a completely different beast anyway.  What's going on with the Wii is a first.  Nintendo released a home console five years after the original Xbox that has not produced a single game in a year's time that could not be done on the Xbox.  In fact, if done on the Xbox the game might even be played in Dolby Digital 5.1 surround.  The only thing we got was a new controller.  The controller is really cool (if majorly flawed), but it is still the only thing Nintendo brought to the table.  This has never ever ever happened before.  You're fooling yourself if you think this is the order of the day for Nintendo.

Anyway, you're taking my words out of context.  I followed up the line you quoted and responded to with:  "Actually, I'm speaking too strongly.  I think [they probably can't stay on top], but their early lead is going to be pretty big so I suppose it might end up being insurmountable.  I doubt it, but maybe."

[boykster]

It depends on the game.  Some multiplatform games are a complete wash and some look better on one console or another.  Overall I'd say the PS3 is capable of better graphics, but in today's world, its not a huge, huge difference (though there are always some games that really look great on one over the other)

That's my read on it; I own an xbox360 and have spent quite a bit of time this past week with a PS3 (friend got one for xmas).  The xbox360 has it's flaws - it's been subject to some serious hardware failures, it's graphics subsystem isn't as powerful as the PS3, etc.  But being the first "next gen" console to market, even with sluggish title releases for the first year or so, it still has a great lead over the PS3 for titles and adoption.  I haven't had much time with the PS3 online, but I have to say that xbox LIVE is a real treat to use.  Its easy, simple, intuitive, and 'just works' when it comes to managing friends lists, getting games going, etc.  Sure, you pay for it, but it's worth it IMHO.

I'd love to have both a 360 and a PS3, but I just can't justify the time (the $$ isn't a big deal).  I love the God of War games, and playing it on my PSP just isn't going to be the same as on the big screen by any means. 

 

[SavannahLion]

The Genesis had a faster processor, but the SNES had a dedicated sound chip, far more capable graphics hardware, three times as much RAM (not to mention a FAR better controller).

If you're going to argue technical aspects on a console, can you at least not inflate the numbers there? The Genesis leveraged two audio chips, a Yamaha and a TI. In my book, this pretty much indicates dedicated audio. If you mean by dedicated that the SNES leveraged a DSP alongside the Sony chip, then yes, that is true. Genesis's failing in this regards is the fact the Yamaha didn't have DMA which meant the CPU had to baby the Audio a bit.  The SNES does not have three times as much main RAM, it's 64K vs 128K.

Now about the graphics capabilities. I've always felt most of the graphics capabilities the SNES employed were underemployed or incurred a costly performance hit due to the snot slow CPU. A couple of very skilled SFII fighters could slow the game down on the SNES... that's kind of sad. In an interview with a Nintendo engineer I read years ago, Nintendo admitted that they designed the SNES specifically for the Japanese market and their tendency towards RPG's. They failed to understand consumer desires of the U.S. at the time. There's a pretty good reason why SEGA's "Blast Processing" marketing scam worked so damn well around here... besides most people not really understanding how a computer works.

I've decided to cut the rest of my comment out because:

Anyway, you're taking my words out of context.  I followed up the line you quoted and responded to with:  "Actually, I'm speaking too strongly.  I think [they probably can't stay on top], but their early lead is going to be pretty big so I suppose it might end up being insurmountable.  I doubt it, but maybe."

Then I apologize. However, I still stand by my previous comment. Nintendo may not have done their hardware up right. But at this point Nintendo's marketing team is doing a damn good job of selling the console and their strategy of coming out of the gate and staying in the black on each console seems to be spot on. You may be right, Nintendo may not finish first in this race, but I'll bank they'll come in a close second.

I can't say for everyone else, but I find it irritating that Sony tries to pack so many features into their console that they're eating them at a loss, then develop, what? Six different price/model tiers in an effort to reduce their losses. Mark my words, with so many  disparate models out there, it's going to hurt the gamers in the long run.

What's going on with the Wii is a first.  Nintendo released a home console five years after the original Xbox that has not produced a single game in a year's time that could not be done on the Xbox.

Can you at least check your game list before making that comment? If you're talking strictly about graphics, OK, you have that. But as for gameplay and control, I can name at least one, Elebits, that can't be done on the Xbox due to the control scheme. If I wanted to go digging, I'm sure I can find others. Graphics are just a small part of the gaming equation. One of my favorite games, Katamari, looks like its more suited on a previous gen console than the current one, but it's still a game that finds gaming time with me.

At this point, all I'm saying, shmokes, is that if you want to argue the merits of any console, can you at least get the facts straight? Quite a bit of your argument sounds an awful lot like a fanboys argument. I find myself wanting to tear apart your commentary ala PBJ and I'm just not in the mood for that level of... how would one put it? Pigheadedness? Ugh, just thinking about that makes me sick... I hope I don't have food poising.

[Howard_Casto]

The ps3 will NEVER surpass the other two, in terms of world-wide sales.  There's too much of a head-start.  Assuming the ps3 were to get some killer app, the ps3 would still have to sell 3 times as many systems as the other two just to approach getting evened up with their sales.  Then they would have to continue to sell at this rate for some time to make any kind of real lead.  This just isn't realistically possible.  I mean it's technically possible, it could happen, but a lot of really unlikely events would have to occur.  

I would like to address this 10 year lifespan idea that sony throws around as well, because a lot of sony supporters site that as the reason the ps3 will be a success.  Really?  You believe that b.s?  Ok let us assume that sony is right (and they very well could be) and the ps3 does have a 10 year life-span.  Well the other two almost definately have 5--7 year spans, so when the ps3 "hits it stride" nintendo and m$ will come out with bigger and better consoles and people will be willing to spend money on a new console again.  So sony will be left with a cheap platform with some life in it, but it'll be the inferior of the other two and have a developer support base that wasn't that strong to begin with.  In the mean-time, sony still isn't making any money, due to poor software sales and a loss on every system sold.  Nintendo makes a profit on every console and their first party sales are quite strong.  M$ is doing fairly well, especially considering that they absolutely don't care if they lose money on the 360, just like they didn't care that they lost money on the xbox.  Their strat is to bully out everyone else, as they can afford to.  Sony could potentially do this, but seeing as they are a Japaneese company, rooted very much in turning a profit, it is unlikely they would implement this policy in the long-term.  

Also, just a side note, but m$ will NEVER do well in japan.  Sony, even if they came out with a turd with USB ports will ALWAYS do fairly well in Japan.  Just accept this as a given.  I hate to say it, but for lack of a better term, the Japaneese are very racist when it comes to foreign companies, american home electronics in particular.  Even in the golden age when the american gaming company's were the only ones that mattered world-wide, the sales of popular consoles like the 2600 were fairly poor in japan.  With that being said, the US is the major market, so you only have to do well in the US and not be a complete failure in Japan to be the world-wide leader.


While I don't think that sony is going to go out of business mid-cycle.  (Although that is certainly possible.) I think we can all agree they are going to come in a solid 3rd this go around unless something major happens.  Especially with the 800lb gorillias that are smash bros and what I predict to be insainely popular wii-fit have yet to be released in the US. I dbout they'll be console sellers, but they are new titles that'll have big sales, thus keeping the wii's library current into the next year.  People say that the wii isn't competing with the others, but when you can only afford a single console (which is often the case with this new market) and you want a wii first, it certainly does.  If anything, once the wii's supply issues are sorted out, I'd expect to see a noticable drop in sales of other consoles, admittedly hurting m$ (the other popular choice) more than sony.  


Btw, SLion is quite right.  I can name a game that the xbox can't do right now.  Super Mario Galaxy.  While the xbox was technically capable of doing it graphically, it wouldn't have been able to keep up a decent framerate like the wii as smg can have upwards of 60 enemies on the screen at a time with various lighting effects attached to each individual enemy, not to mention the world itself and mario and the game NEVER looses a frame. People look at smg at first-glance and think it looks like every other mario, but this isn't true.  It's just unlike other companies (cough m$, cough sony, cough cough) the lighting and shading effects nintendo utilizes are quite subtle and not overly flashy.

Schmokes, I've gotta agree here, sounds like you are rooting for sony and making up excuses for them instead of sticking to the facts regarding the other consoles.  There's nothing wrong with that, it just really hurts any argument you might make in their defense when you say things like that.

[Pops]

One thing nobody mentioned is the side uses of consoles, Dvd, Blu-ray HD dvd.
I know of three people who went for the PS3 because of the Blu-ray. It's cheaper to buy a PS3 than a dedicated player.
The HD drive is an add on to the 360 and Nintendo haven't even considered video as an option.

We have both a 360 and a PS3 in the house, it's much of a muchness as to which is better for games but the Blu-ray gets the Ps3 into the livingroom hooked up to the 1080 pi TV (50'')
Yeah I'm a jammy so 'n' so  3 working sons all still living at home has it's drawbacks but it has some advantages 

Spend more time playing games on the PC  tbh....

[versapak]

You've got Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank Future, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Virtua Fighter 5, Unreal Tournament III, Call of Duty 4, Rock Band, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Folklore, Guitar Hero III, MotorStorm, etc.

Exclusive:

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Ratchet & Clank Future
Ninja Gaiden Sigma (Though this is primarily the Ninja Gaiden we have already played on Xbox, and 360 will be getting Ninja Gaiden 2)
Folklore
Motorstorm



Multiplatform

Virtua Fighter 5
Unreal Tournament III
Call of Duty 4
Rock Band
Elder Scrolls Oblivion
Guitar Hero III



No, it seems most of the games on that list are NOT exclusives.

[shmokes]

No, it seems most of the games on that list are NOT exclusives.

Hey . . . I'm going to be a lawyer, not a mathematician!     Also, I consider Virtua Fighter a PS3 exclusive just cos they got it well before anyone else. 

Howard, it only took Nintendo something like 9 months to erase Xbox 360's 10 million-unit lead.  PS3 is currently sitting at 5.5 million sold and Xbox 360 has 12.7 million.  That's a 7 million difference.  Do you really think that's an impossible lead for Sony to catch up to?

Also, I think you misunderstand the 10 year lifespan thing.  PS2 is still going strong after seven years.  It has at least an 8 year lifespan -  probably longer.  Sony does not have to wait until the PS3 is dead to release a PS4. 

[DaveMMR]

Nintendo, I think, played just about everything right except their hardware.  It's too weak.  They can't stay on top with it, IMO.  It also doesn't help that the motion sensors are pretty shoddy. 

Okay, again you're viewing the industry from the eyes of the hardcore.  Other people, those that don't sit there and count the number of polygons on screen, have money too.  At my apartment, we had 10 people all playing the Wii (and the arcade cabinet when it wasn't their turn) and I don't think I heard anyone utter "wow, these graphics suck".   As a matter of fact, these are 10 people who don't play videogames much but left saying "wow, I want to get a Wii".  One already has.  And that's why Wii is on top.  No one cares about the graphics when they're having fun. 

And why is it weak to begin with?   Simple, they want to make a profit.  Cheap system for the family that's also fun.     

Howard, it only took Nintendo something like 9 months to erase Xbox 360's 10 million-unit lead.  PS3 is currently sitting at 5.5 million sold and Xbox 360 has 12.7 million.  That's a 7 million difference.  Do you really think that's an impossible lead for Sony to catch up to?

You are comparing apples to oranges here.  Nintendo units are priced much cheaper that PS3, and can move much more in a shorter span of time.  It's simple economics.   It's not impossible for Sony to catch up, but highly unlikely.   They'd have to seriously slash their prices in order to come close.

[shmokes]

Graphics do matter.  They matter a lot.  Graphics are not just eye candy.  For one thing, eye candy is important.  It increase immersion.  The special effects in The Lord of the Rings made for a considerably more immersing experience than, say, Labyrinth or Willow.  The same goes for games.  Additionally, graphical advances (not to mention other processing-intensive things like physics and AI) ENABLE new and better gameplay.  Splinter Cell could not exist on a system that can't process handle light sources and shadows.  Madden is better when a player is not just a block to collide with, but when his arms and legs are modeled and colliding with just an outstretched arm produces a different effect than a full-body check.  Enemies that hide, strategize, communicate, cooperate create a better gameplay experience.  Not having buildings and trees suddenly pop into view makes for a better gaming experience.  It also enables fast, immersing games like Burnout. 

And, whether you want to admit it or not, they matter to people who buy games.  Lots of them.  If they didn't, we wouldn't have ditched the Playstation for the Playstation 2, which has an identical controller and does absolutely nothing different, other than increasing the processing power.

The Wii looks dated now, while its graphics capabilities are five years old, but what will it look like further into the cycle, when it's graphics are nine or ten years old?  We were perfectly happy with 2600 graphics until the NES came around (5200 and 7800 didn't really make too much difference).  Those were great until SNES/Genesis appeared, which were spectacular up until PS and N64 came on the scene.  The point is, our standards constantly rise, and as they do, we expect more from our systems.  Our standards will be higher three and four years from now than they are today, and Wii will look all the more dated.  And the PS3 will cost $150 by then.

[pointdablame]

One thing nobody mentioned is the side uses of consoles, Dvd, Blu-ray HD dvd.
I know of three people who went for the PS3 because of the Blu-ray. It's cheaper to buy a PS3 than a dedicated player.

This is already a moot point as you can get dedicated BluRay players for under $399 now.  That may have sold some systems in the past year when folks wanted bluray and the PS3 was the bargain player, but its not the case anymore.

Will they still sell some PS3s b/c it can do bluray as well? Of course... but it's hardly going to be a deciding factor.  Just like the PS2, where the Japanese were picking them up as a DVD player just as often as they were as a game console, that fad ends once the hardware matures and declines in price.  You can get relatively inexpensive HD DVD and BluRay players now, so that argument is all but dead.

[pointdablame]

You've got Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank Future, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Virtua Fighter 5, Unreal Tournament III, Call of Duty 4, Rock Band, Elder Scrolls Oblivion, Folklore, Guitar Hero III, MotorStorm, etc.  A few of those are multiplatform, but most are exclusives.  At any rate, exclusive or not, PS3's lineup is not as weak as you are portraying it.  They've got big guns coming, but their 2007 lineup ain't bad.  Depending how you look at it, it's likely stronger than Wii's (it clearly doesn't touch the 360's library yet).

And while it's nothing but my personal opinon, I'll submit that the PS3 has exactly TWO "ace cards" right now... Uncharted and Ratchet and Clank.  That's it.  You can try to put Motorstorm in there or Warhawk or even VF5 for the folks who will drop $500+ on a system just to play a game for a few months before it goes multiplatform, but I'll argue those points.  Those aren't mass market system sellers (though VF5 definitely sold some machines to big time fighter fans).  Ratchet and Uncharted are the only reasons I (and many folks I talk to) want a PS3.  Those are the potential system sellers.  I WANT a PS3, but I don't want to spend $500+ just to play 2 games. 

The PS3 2007 lineup is/was not bad at all, but most of it could be had elsewhere (read:360) or is mediocre enough not to warrant a system purchase.  And what is on the horizon?  Gran Turismo will be out eventually, MGS will be great, but may also see delays.  God of War 3 will make me buy the system if I don't have one by then.  That's all much deeper into the cycle though and the Wii and 360 could conceivably still be selling the way they are compartive to the PS3 for the next year

I still challenge your assertion that MS and Nintendo have "played most of their ace cards"  There's no reason to believe that we won't see as many big time games for those systems in the next few years as we've seen in the first few.  You can already see Mario Kart and Smash Bros creating a nice first half of 2008 for Wii.  And even if MS hired ME to code Halo 4, it'd still sell a bazillion copies and sell systems.  It'd ruin the sales of Halo 5, but it would still make 360s fly off the shelf for a while.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess, but I just don't understand how you can reasonably believe that MS and Nintendo are for the most part "done" with their big games.

In any case, if Sony doesn't end up in the number one spot (albeit with a MUCH smaller lead than the previous two generations) they will at least beat Microsoft and they will still have won in terms of being the gamer's system rather than the casual gamer's system.

Care to make a friendly bet again?  You remember how that worked out for you with the Wii name-change bet, right? 
 

[tommy]

The Wii looks dated now, while its graphics capabilities are five years old, but what will it look like further into the cycle, when it's graphics are nine or ten years old? 

The Wii is a family experience that anyone can just pickup and play and most of the people who are going to buy it do not care about weak graphics.

There is no chance a whole family is going to sit down and play anything on the 360 or the PS3, those systems are mainly a one person online system and rarely will you ever have another person sitting next to you enjoying it with you.

This Wii is about enjoying games with actually people, not people online.

[shmokes]

This is already a moot point as you can get dedicated BluRay players for under $399 now. 

FYI, you can get them for under $299 now.

[shmokes]

Care to make a friendly bet again?  You remember how that worked out for you with the Wii name-change bet, right? 
 

  Well, the difference is that we both thought that you would probably win that bet.  I was just willing to put a little money on it for fun and I thought it was possible that you could lose.

I would definitely put a $10 on PS3 beating MS in worldwide sales by the end of 2009.  I think it's even possible that it could happen by the end of 2008, but I wouldn't put money on it.  I don't think I'd bet on PS3 beating the Wii, though I think there's a good chance it will happen.  If it does, though, it will likely be after the successor to Wii is already on the market.

[pointdablame]

This is already a moot point as you can get dedicated BluRay players for under $399 now. 

FYI, you can get them for under $299 now.

Last I checked, $299 was also under $399     It's nice to see them dropping like that.

On the HD DVD side, Walmart actually blew out the old Toshiba A2's a few weeks back for about $100.  Crazy crazy price for a really nice player (I've got one myself).

[shmokes]

Yeah . . . I just suspected you didn't know just how under $399 you could get them.

[DaveMMR]

Graphics do matter.  They matter a lot.  Graphics are not just eye candy. 

Okay, the Wii graphics are not horrible.  Yes, a little outdated compared to the other two systems, but they're not Atari 2600 blocks or anything like that.  But again, Nintendo is not appealing to the people who are buying their systems according to graphical capability.  They're selling to the people who want to play games with their girlfriends, grandparents and children.   They don't need "total immersion", they want to have a good time.

Now if people bought video game systems strictly according to graphical capabilities, then the Sega Master System, the Sega Game Gear, the Atari Lynx, the Sega Saturn, the 3DO and the Neo-Geo home systems should have all been winners.  And the Gameboy, with 4 measly shades of gray, would have been a failure out of the gate.  But history has taught us otherwise.  So to say that the PS3 is going to come out on top because "it has the best graphics" would be incorrect. 

[MajorLag]

It seems to me that we've passed the point where better graphics can convey more information to the player, so I would have to say that at this point yes, better graphics are just eye-candy.

[AcidArmitage]

ew a lawyer 

[DaveMMR]

It seems to me that we've passed the point where better graphics can convey more information to the player, so I would have to say that at this point yes, better graphics are just eye-candy.

Hehe, I think we pretty much past that back in the NES days, when dragons no longer looked like ducks and the hero was not a square holding a key three times his size.   

[versapak]

[EDIT]

Forgot what thread I was in. 

[SavannahLion]

While I don't think that sony is going to go out of business mid-cycle.  (Although that is certainly possible.)

Might I suggest rewording that a little bit? I've had to read that sentence (and paragraph) a couple of times before I realized you were talking about Sony pulling out of the console business, not necessarily out of business entirely. Sony is mind bogglingly huge. After reading an article about all the Microsoft partners and MS owned companies at :censored:microsoft.com, I wanted to see if I could do the same with Sony. After spending weeks researching as many of Sony's subsidiaries I could find, I finally gave up when I spotted an earnings blurb on a world-wide corporate lending bank owned by Sony.

Graphics do matter.  They matter a lot.  Graphics are not just eye candy.  For one thing, eye candy is important.  It increase immersion.  The special effects in The Lord of the Rings made for a considerably more immersing experience than, say, Labyrinth or Willow.  The same goes for games.  Additionally, graphical advances (not to mention other processing-intensive things like physics and AI) ENABLE new and better gameplay.  Splinter Cell could not exist on a system that can't process handle light sources and shadows.  Madden is better when a player is not just a block to collide with, but when his arms and legs are modeled and colliding with just an outstretched arm produces a different effect than a full-body check.  Enemies that hide, strategize, communicate, cooperate create a better gameplay experience.  Not having buildings and trees suddenly pop into view makes for a better gaming experience.  It also enables fast, immersing games like Burnout. 

Oh wow... Coming from someone who hangs out with a group that plays 20 year old arcade machines, this is just downright shocking. If eye candy really is so important, why does a place like BYOAC even exist? Everyone would be scrambling to buy the latest $8,000 arcade cab or sitting in front of their HDTV's playing their PS3 and/or 360, not trying to restore/construct cabinets.

Eye candy isn't the only consideration for playing games. I won't even bother to figure how many game titles I have in my collection that were hailed to have amazing eye candy for their time yet only received one play through before being permanently shelved. If eye candy is so important, why do games like Katamari (A PS2 game no less) warrant such impressive sales despite the fact the modeled people look like Duplo blocks? Where does eye candy come into play when Nintendo feels a back catalogue of ten and fifteen year old games warrant online release on the Wii network?

Great eye candy sometimes warrants attention sure. When those graphics improves the gameplay itself and isn't just there just because the developer happens to have the source available. Remember the first time you popped in a 3DFx card and realized you could see your enemies through the water? I remember the savory joy I had while standing on a platform above a river and killing opponents swimming around. Conversely, do you remember all the hype surrounding lense flare and how every game just had to have it? I remember one pathetic ---Cleveland steamer--- hole of a magazine (who shall remain nameless) actually adjusted game scores on whether flare was in the game or not. Christ, what a stupid waste of processing power.

For every game released where graphics really help the gameplay, there seems to be at least five others where those same graphics did absolutely nothing to help the gameplay. Those games sit on shelves the world over, remembered only by the game developers, collectors and the handful of people who actually still play the game for whatever reason.

And do I really have to point out that

Enemies that hide, strategize, communicate, cooperate create a better gameplay experience.

have zilch to do with better graphics?

C'mon shmokes, this is what I was talking about fanboy arguments.

It's really ---smurfing--- difficult to compose a message when a seven year old keeps pestering you and a baby is screaming for no apparent reason. So I'm sure there's a lost thought in there somewhere. 

[stephenp1983]

But really how much are they loosing now on the hardware for a ps3?  Wii make something like a 50 dollar profit right on hardware along.  Sony's only margin for profit really is in the software sales.

[Jdurg]

I wouldn't consider the PS3 to be a "flop", but when you look at all the hype surrounding it and the cocky attitude that Sony had with it, I would say that it failed to live up to its expectations.  Sony pulled a Nintendo.  They figured that if they put the Playstation name on it they could charge whatever they wanted and that people would flock to it because of the name alone.  Sony has subsequently found out that it's not true.  Sony itself has been trying harder than you could imagine to win the HD war with the Blue-Ray format.  They made a somewhat poor move by expecting the more expensive Blue-Ray systems to become popular because they were in a PS3.  They failed to take into account the high prices they'd have to charge in order to make a profit and that not everybody is a multi-millionaire.

The public wants a good system that plays great games and doesn't cost them an entire paycheck.  Right now, the PS3 simply isn't that system.  This is where Nintendo has won because they came up with a system that is affordable, has great games, and is fun to play.  

The other thing that Sony has to deal with is the fact that the console market is not stationary.  I can guarantee you that Microsoft and Nintendo are already thinking about their next system and what they want to do with it.  Yes, Sony may be able to catch up with their PS3, but by then will the other companies have come out with something else?

For the record, I own none of these systems.  I've just outgrown console games and don't have the time to play them.  Plus, with the insane price of these new consoles I can't even afford them.  I'd much rather play emulated games on my computer because I think the older games have better gameplay and an overall better experience.  Graphics mean nothing.  In fact, I've yet to play a game that was graphically hyped that was actually fun to play.

[somunny]

Care to make a friendly bet again?  You remember how that worked out for you with the Wii name-change bet, right? 
 

  Well, the difference is that we both thought that you would probably win that bet.  I was just willing to put a little money on it for fun and I thought it was possible that you could lose.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that. 

[shmokes]

Eye candy isn't the only consideration for playing games.

I did not even begin to suggest that it is.  I said that it is one consideration.  And I said that it is an important consideration.  It is.  And not solely for its effect on gameplay either.  Visual effects are an important part of the experience, just as they are in Forest Gump, The Matrix, or Lord of the Rings.  People who suggest otherwise are just being pretentious.

 [Enemies that hide, strategize, communicate, cooperate] have zilch to do with better graphics?

Again you are misreading my post.  The Wii's video chipset is not the only area where it is deficient.  Both it's main CPU and it's graphics chipset are incredibly weak compared to 360 and PS3.  Just a couple lines above the one you quoted, I said:

Additionally, graphical advances (not to mention other processing-intensive things like physics and AI) ENABLE new and better gameplay. 

I'm not a Sony fanboy.  That's hilarious.  The only Sony system I've ever owned was a PS One (which I recently gave away when I moved to Miami).  Not a regular Playstation, but that itty-bitty redesigned version that was released years after the Playstation's debut.  I bought an N64 on launch day.  The only systems I owned in the last generation were Xbox and Gamecube.  The only system I own from this generation so far is the Wii and I already mentioned that I thought I might get a PS3 in 2009.  I may be wrong, but if I am it's not because I'm blinded by some irrational Sony loyalty. 

Also, I'm not wrong.   

[DaveMMR]

I did not even begin to suggest that it is.  I said that it is one consideration.  And I said that it is an important consideration.  It is.  And not solely for its effect on gameplay either.  Visual effects are an important part of the experience, just as they are in Forest Gump, The Matrix, or Lord of the Rings.  People who suggest otherwise are just being pretentious.

Again: original Gameboy - one of the best selling system of all time - 4 shades of gray.   If you're going to invest your money based on graphical capability alone, you'd be better off just buying a stack of lottery tickets instead. 

I don't think anyone here is saying that graphics aren't important.  It's just that, based on past performance, it really only takes two things to move a console: game selection and price.  Of course, you're right: no one wants to buy a system whose graphics look like first generation PS garbage.  But the Wii again is not trying to up the ante.  Nintendo looked at the Gamecube and said "ehh, good enough for what we're trying to accomplish" and for all intents and purposes, it worked out.  And when people want those eye-popping graphics?  They're going to head right to the Xbox 360. 

As for game selection: I'm sure some people love Ratchet & Clank, but I have yet to meet anyone who bought a PS3 just to play that game.  Gamers, on the other hand, do want to play Halo 3 or Super Mario Galaxy (now, mind you, not six months from now... maybe).  Sony just doesn't have those must-have exclusives.  And their one "Ace"?  They botched their former limited exclusive!  The Xbox 360 is also getting GTA IV at the same time (not a year later).   And by shoehorning a Bluray player into their box, that people didn't ask for mind you (we all learned that the PS2s made horrible DVD players), they turned an almost guaranteed success into a third-place, also ran overpriced piece of "do-it-all-gizmo-that-also-plays-games".   Sony should have learned from the PSP (I didn't see UMDs fly off the shelves) - but they didn't. 

I'm sorry, but I'm predicting that Sony's finishing this console generation in third place.  They just completely forgot about the everyday people that helped turn Sony into a video game powerhouse and instead are using their beloved brand as a weapon in the format war, making the consumer the casualty. 

By the way, I entered this current console generation with a full desire to purchase a PS3.   But that $500 ~ $600 was way to scary to comprehend.  These were the same people that cut off Sega's sac in front of a packed audience by pricing their system lower than the Saturn.  Funny what happens when success goes to their head...

 

[danny_galaga]

It takes more than Nintendo to make a killer software library.  There's no better developer to have in your corner than Nintendo, but they can't do it alone.

well, house of the dead has completely sealed the deal for me.

[versapak]

It takes more than Nintendo to make a killer software library.  There's no better developer to have in your corner than Nintendo, but they can't do it alone.

well, house of the dead has completely sealed the deal for me.

Xbox FTW!


The Wii is the toy that every body wants,  but everyone that I know that has one has it collecting dust 80% of the time.


As far as gaming systems go though... The Wii isn't the competition to either the PS3 or the 360. Real gamers, the ones that are going to be buying the bulk of software, have the Wii as a secondary system. It is great for party play, and for getting non-gamers to play some games, but it is not a gamers system.

[tommy]

Where did the guy who loves Nintendo go, shmokes. Stop selling out to Sony. Now you say the Wii-mote is crappy and not worth a damn. Damn you. 

I wonder if Nintendo will improve on the Wii-mote next gen or just go another way.

[Hoopz]

There is no chance a whole family is going to sit down and play anything on the 360 or the PS3, those systems are mainly a one person online system and rarely will you ever have another person sitting next to you enjoying it with you.

Incorrect.  I have a 360 at work that I brought home to test.  My entire family played various games on Arcade Live together.  My 3 & 5 year old daughters played Uno and Feeding Frenzy while my 9 year old son played Pac Man and Boom Boom Rocket with my wife.

I would agree that the Wii is probably more attractive to casual gamers while most games on the 360 and PS3 are geared more towards gamers.

[tommy]

Arcade live hardly counts, people don't buy a 360 for those games..

[pointdablame]

Arcade live hardly counts, people don't buy a 360 for those games..

Arguments are great when you can pick and choose what points are valid aren't they?

 

[tommy]

Yeah, hoopz just did that. He took the one rare time when more than one person would be playing a 360 and tried to build a whole case around it when he damn well knows those arcade games are not the purpose of the 360.. 

Families don't all sit down and play the 360 like they do the Wii. that's my argument.

Don't make useless posts, PDB. Try to say something about what we are talking about and not focus so much on taking shots at people. 

[pointdablame]

Don't make useless posts, PDB. Try to say something about what we are talking about and not focus so much on taking shots at people. 

haha... omfg.   

You kill me tommy, you really do.  I bet you typed that with a straight face too.

[ark_ader]

Once the coders get up to speed with the PS3 we shall see better games.  The same could be said for the 360, but with a lot of titles being ports these days, there is little in the creative process department,  lately.

I have two PSPs who would love a PS3 system to hook into, but $399 is still a bunch of cash and I know after seeing the PS3 in action on a 40" Plasma, I will not get the same thrill on a standard TV set.

So before I can get a PS3 I now have to spring for a decent screen.  So its not $399 for a PS3, it is more like $2399.

For the record, I still have great fun on my 2 year old PC, with online games taking the most action.  Something I guess I will share when I eventually get the PS3.  Warhawk...!!!! 

Give Sony time and its developers, and then we will see which is the best console.

[lcddream]

And the PS3 will cost $150 by then.

And thats when I will own one. When it's affordable.

[danny_galaga]

It takes more than Nintendo to make a killer software library.  There's no better developer to have in your corner than Nintendo, but they can't do it alone.

well, house of the dead has completely sealed the deal for me.

Xbox FTW!


The Wii is the toy that every body wants,  but everyone that I know that has one has it collecting dust 80% of the time.


As far as gaming systems go though... The Wii isn't the competition to either the PS3 or the 360. Real gamers, the ones that are going to be buying the bulk of software, have the Wii as a secondary system. It is great for party play, and for getting non-gamers to play some games, but it is not a gamers system.

someone else might have mentioned it here, but isnt a PC the system of choice for gamers?

[shmokes]

Problem is, the PC is dying.  Anymore there are just too many great console games that will never make it to PC (or the PC version will suck) for serious gamers to stick with PC exclusively.

[AtomSmasher]

someone else might have mentioned it here, but isnt a PC the system of choice for gamers?

While I like to believe that is true, the reality is consoles are making a lot of headway in that area.  Oddly enough, Penny-Arcade just posted something on this very topic

As I have described previously, most of my friends these days get their Vitamin G from the console side of the spectrum. When the multiplayer options on those primitive machines were anemic, nasty little things, I would always nod knowingly, secure in the knowledge that they would be back (oh yes, they would be back). There's really no reason for them to come back, now. The transfer of PC gaming's richest, most vital blood to the console is almost complete. Where our best hopes have not died out completely, they've directed their vigor at a platform that has rewarded them with riches beyond imagining. If you told me that Pandemic, Irrational, Bioware, Raven, and Infinity Ward would be devoted to creating console entertainment years ago, I'd have pressed a button that sent you down to a kind of subterranean foyer where you could better acquaint yourself with my Rancor.

[versapak]

someone else might have mentioned it here, but isnt a PC the system of choice for gamers?

Sure, it is a "system" for gamers.

It certainly isn't the only one, and I never made any claim that there was only one system for gamers. I simply stated that the Wii was not a system that was geared toward "gamers".


The Xbox FTW comment was a direct response to the the House of the Dead III on Wii comment. House of the Dead III and II were released on Xbox years ago now.

[AtomSmasher]

The Xbox FTW comment was a direct response to the the House of the Dead III on Wii comment. House of the Dead III and II were released on Xbox years ago now.

Typing of the Dead FTW

 

[versapak]

The Xbox FTW comment was a direct response to the the House of the Dead III on Wii comment. House of the Dead III and II were released on Xbox years ago now.

Typing of the Dead FTW

 

Well... Dreamcast FTW too then.

[Hoopz]

Yeah, hoopz just did that. He took the one rare time when more than one person would be playing a 360 and tried to build a whole case around it when he damn well knows those arcade games are not the purpose of the 360.. 

Families don't all sit down and play the 360 like they do the Wii. that's my argument.

Don't make useless posts, PDB. Try to say something about what we are talking about and not focus so much on taking shots at people. 

You said that families would never sit down together and play the 360.  All I did was say that you were wrong and list specifics about why.  Don't say it's the one rare time that it will happen after you say that it will never happen.  That's just tommy idiotic.  I never said I bought the 360 for Arcade Live either. 

As a parent of three younger children, I would definitely say the Wii is geared more towards families.  I was in Blockbuster for the first time in years a few weeks ago and saw that the selection of 360 games was for a much different target audience than the Wii games.  (I didn't look at PS3 games.)  My 5 year old daughter wants a video game and I would have a much easier time selecting from Wii games than 360 games.

I think the key here is will the average family continue to buy the Wii in order to maintain it's lead or will the dedicated gamers purchase PS3s to take the lead?  I understand the point that some that have purchased the  Wii find them to be a novelty and don't continue to play them.  However, are those people going to purchase another system in the short term?  Maybe some, but I wouldn't see that being a high percentage.  Those that want the 360 or PS3 will get it regardless of any other systems at home. 

Edit: Oh, and Intellivision is still the best system ever.   

[tommy]

You said that families would never sit down together and play the 360.  All I did was say that you were wrong and list specifics about why.  Don't say it's the one rare time that it will happen after you say that it will never happen. 

Okay, I see you're a little slow and I need to spell things out for you. Families do not buy a 360 and INTEND on playing it as a family. The 360 is for the hardcore gamer who plays alone while online or if not online, still plays alone. Sure, there will be rare times when families will all use the system, but it is rare, as your case was.

You could always find the one time in any argument that will be the exception as you just did, but get real man, don't split hairs here.

You have no argument here, except for wanting to argue with me for no reason as you seem to like to do.

[Hoopz]

Don't make blanket statements that you can't back up.  Don't say that families won't play together then act like a petulant child when someone tells you otherwise. 

I'm not arguing with you.  I simply said you were incorrect and showed you why. 

[tommy]

Now I can see how so many people in PnR go around calling other members names, I have a few for you but you're not worth it.

Grow up, learn about what you're talking about before you talk about it and don't be so silly about it.

I'm incorrect in my argument because you, the one person on earth decided to play a few games with your kids, that's you're stance?   

Why do you think no one here saying I'm wrong with what I said so far, cause I'm not wrong. You're the only one who seems to know nothing about what is said around here.

[ChadTower]

I find it a little amusing that the argument is about playing a $2.50 card game on a $350 game system.

I actually spent time playing Uno with my wife and kids over the long New Year's weekend... with actual cards on the kitchen table.   

[tommy]

I guess the score is hoopz and his family playing the 360 as a family to people playing real games alone on LIVE is 1 to 10 million or so.

[Hoopz]

I actually spent time playing Uno with my wife and kids over the long New Year's weekend... with actual cards on the kitchen table.   

We play the card game also.  The kids saw it on Xbox and wanted to try it.

Tommy, I think people ignore you as I should have.   

[tommy]

I actually spent time playing Uno with my wife and kids over the long New Year's weekend... with actual cards on the kitchen table.   

We play the card game also.  The kids saw it on Xbox and wanted to try it.

Tommy, I think people ignore you as I should have.   

Thanks for seeing I was right and you have nothing more to say.

[shmokes]

Here's something to consider as well, when it comes to Grandma and Grandpa getting in on the Wii action:  Grandma and Grandpa are not gamers.  They might try Wii Sports and get a gigantic kick out of it and go get themselves a system, but they're not going to be down at EB or Toys R Us once or twice a month buying new games.  If Nintendo's giant hardware lead does not translate into increased software sales for third parties, third parties will continue focusing their attention on 360 and PS3.  GAMERS are the only segment of the population that buy 10 or 20 or 30 games for their console.  Ask yourself whether creating a system that isn't for gamers is a wise long-term move . . .

Nintendo will make loads of money on Wii.  They create fantastic software, and own properties that are worth billions.  But third parties will go where the money is, and so far I don't see third party software doing much of anything on the Wii.  Where the third parties go, the games go.  And the system with the best library will win in the end.

[tommy]

I don't think 3rd parties are even needed on the Wii. I mean look at what's been made for the Wii that is not from Nintendo, it's been all garbage anyway. Other consoles rely on 3rd parties a lot more.

[ChadTower]

Ask yourself whether creating a system that isn't for gamers is a wise long-term move . . .

Hrm.  These numbers are out of ---my bottom--- but probably not too far off.  Let's assume that Sony needs to sell 4 games to break even on the hardware loss for a PS3.  I have no idea how accessories factor in here.  If 4 games is correct, they aren't even making a profit until game 5.  That person at Gamestop once a month for a new game isn't making Sony any money for nearly 6 months.

The Wii makes money itself.  Immediate profit.  Even if that person only ever buys 3 games, that's probably as much profit as Sony will make on a person that buys 7-8 games... it's a whole lot easier to get them to drop the $250 + 3 than it is the $400 + 8.

[Grasshopper]

One thing that is likely to work in Sony’s favour is that the current generation of consoles is likely to last longer than the last one. Sony therefore has more time to catch up.

There are two reasons why I say that.

Firstly, the last generation was, in my opinion, brought to a premature end by Micro$oft. There was at least a couple of years of viable life left in the original Xbox if M$ had chosen to continue with it. It’s worth noting that Sony continued to achieve healthy PS2 sales long after the 360 had appeared.

Secondly, the gap between a console’s theoretical processing capability and the processing power actually used by a typical game has widened dramatically (the notable exception being the Wii). It will be many years (if ever) before we see games that fully utilise the processing power of the PS3 or 360. So although we might see minor upgrades for marketing purposes, there’ll be no real need for M$ and Sony to fundamentally change their hardware platforms for some time to come.

[shmokes]

Ask yourself whether creating a system that isn't for gamers is a wise long-term move . . .

Hrm.  These numbers are out of ---my bottom--- but probably not too far off.  Let's assume that Sony needs to sell 4 games to break even on the hardware loss for a PS3.  I have no idea how accessories factor in here.  If 4 games is correct, they aren't even making a profit until game 5.  That person at Gamestop once a month for a new game isn't making Sony any money for nearly 6 months.

The Wii makes money itself.  Immediate profit.  Even if that person only ever buys 3 games, that's probably as much profit as Sony will make on a person that buys 7-8 games... it's a whole lot easier to get them to drop the $250 + 3 than it is the $400 + 8.

That's the case today, but computer technology prices drop faster than prom dresses.  The Cell processor is already a year old.  Take a look at how much Intel chips are going for today that were top-of-the-line two years ago.  If PS3 owners had to buy 4 games to make Sony break even this Christmas, it will be one game by next Christmas.  The early adopters are loss leaders.

Also, keep in mind that for the most part, third parties don't care how well Sony is doing financially, so long as lots of PS3 owners buy lots of software.  EA makes a profit on every Madden sold regardless of whether Sony has recouped its costs on the hardware.  So if PS3 owners are buying 7 or 8 games apiece, while Wii owners are only buying one or two (or NONE considering the ultimate casual game is already packed in with the system), Wii's hardware lead is going to mean less.

[ChadTower]

That's the case today, but computer technology prices drop faster than prom dresses.  The Cell processor is already a year old.  Take a look at how much Intel chips are going for today that were top-of-the-line two years ago.

Console prices drop, too, on a curve almost as fast.

[versapak]

That's the case today, but computer technology prices drop faster than prom dresses.  The Cell processor is already a year old.  Take a look at how much Intel chips are going for today that were top-of-the-line two years ago.  If PS3 owners had to buy 4 games to make Sony break even this Christmas, it will be one game by next Christmas.  The early adopters are loss leaders.

Also, keep in mind that for the most part, third parties don't care how well Sony is doing financially, so long as lots of PS3 owners buy lots of software.  EA makes a profit on every Madden sold regardless of whether Sony has recouped its costs on the hardware.  So if PS3 owners are buying 7 or 8 games apiece, while Wii owners are only buying one or two (or NONE considering the ultimate casual game is already packed in with the system), Wii's hardware lead is going to mean less.

That can all be said about the 360 as well though.

I don't predict the demise of Sony with the PS3, and never have, but I do indeed predict that they have lost their top spot for at least the remainder of this generation.


Again I'll state that the Wii is no direct competition to the PS3 or 360. It is a supplemental system to the gamers that will buy a PS3 or 360, not a system that most gamers would by instead of.

[ChadTower]

I won't buy a PS3 or 360.  The Wii will be my only system of this generation that gets purchased anywhere near retail.  The other two will be picked up at yard sales years from now if at all.

[versapak]

I won't buy a PS3 or 360.  The Wii will be my only system of this generation that gets purchased anywhere near retail.  The other two will be picked up at yard sales years from now if at all.

I doubt the situation would be any different if the Wii didn't even exist though, so again I say that the Wii is no direct competition.

[ChadTower]

I doubt the situation would be any different if the Wii didn't even exist though, so again I say that the Wii is no direct competition.

You did say this:

It is a supplemental system to the gamers that will buy a PS3 or 360, not a system that most gamers would by instead of.

I say that is too broad a generalization.  There are plenty of people for whom one game system per generation is more than enough.

[shardian]

Casual gamers don't buy more than one system. Also, families usually don't buy more than one current gen console for their kids either - UNLESS one of them is a portable. Back in the day, if I would have asked for a Sega Genesis for my Birthday then turned around and asked for a SNES for Christmas, I would have gotten an "unappreciative brat" speech for the ages.

The only people who buy an XBOX 360 and a PS3 and a Wii are gaming nerds.

[tommy]

I look at it as what 1st party games do I not want to be without. I consider myself a hardcore gamer and I only buy one  console to go with my PC for gaming. I would not want to miss out on Nintendo's first party games compared to most stuff I can find on other consoles that I can probably get on a PC, unlike Nintendo's games.

[versapak]

I doubt the situation would be any different if the Wii didn't even exist though, so again I say that the Wii is no direct competition.

You did say this:

It is a supplemental system to the gamers that will buy a PS3 or 360, not a system that most gamers would by instead of.

I say that is too broad a generalization.  There are plenty of people for whom one game system per generation is more than enough.

I did not mean that the Wii was only a supplemental system.


I meant that the the type of gamers that will buy a PS3 or 360 will not buy a Wii instead. A "gamer" isn't going to sit there pondering whether they should be getting a Wii or a 360. They are getting the 360, and pondering whether or not they should be getting a Wii also.

Wii has found happiness in the casual gaming market, and that is cool, but it is what it is. The bulk of the big games of the generation will not be on the Wii. As it was with the last 2 generations of Nintendo consoles, the Wii will primarily be the place to get Nintendo games.

[knave]

PC is not dead, not even close...but there is a difference in style when playing games on a computer vs playing on a console.  There will always be great PC games...and some of them might be ported to the consoles but they will still be a different experience.

Any FPS or RTS can be played on a console but the play is much, much different on the PC (better in my opinion.)  The best Graphics and most storage will be on PC (and will be expensive) and network/online play is still better. (Xbox live does a pretty good job of it though)

I have been into PC games since there were computers. Though I wouldn't call myself hardcore. I really like consoles too but not as much as PC's.  I bought a Wii because I want to play games with my kids.  The wii is perfect for that and my kids love it. While we might not play it every day I love the fact that I only paid $200 for it to sit idle and not the higher 360 or PS3 prices.

I wasn't in the market for a Console but the Wii was unique enough to earn a spot with us.  Overall the wii has it's own market that overlaps that of the other more hardcore consoles.  For me I'm happy with my PC and orange box which I will probably play for the next six months to a year, with the odd wii session thrown in. This is all on top of my ever increasing passion for pacman and other arcade games.

[ahofle]

I meant that the the type of gamers that will buy a PS3 or 360 will not buy a Wii instead. A "gamer" isn't going to sit there pondering whether they should be getting a Wii or a 360. They are getting the 360, and pondering whether or not they should be getting a Wii also.

I am that type of gamer (bought Unreal Tournament 3 for PC the day it came out) but I will most likely not buy a PS3 or 360 in addition to my Wii either.  For me, the Wii is to play games and genres that are not really playable on a PC, as well as for playing games with my family or friends or at parties.  Anything else I pretty much play on my PC.  Why on earth would anyone want to play a Bioshock, COD4, or UT3 with a gamepad anyway?   

[shmokes]

To be honest it's not all that different from the previous couple generations.  Nintendo software has been bar far the biggest reason to pick up a Nintendo system.  I got the N64 at launch and bought a Playstation years later.  I bought a Gamecube at launch and got an Xbox at least a year or two later.  I got a Wii a month after launch and expect to get a PS3 (or if I'm wrong and PS3 fails than a 360) in maybe 2009.  I always get Nintendo systems first because I'm a Nintendo whore.  In both of the last two generations (especially the last one) the competition had a stronger library of games, but you had to have a Nintendo system to play Nintendo games.  This generation will be no different in that respect.  Actually, it will be different inasmuch as Nintendo doesn't get the benefit of multiplatform games anymore since their system is too weak to run any of the games coming out for the other two systems.

[versapak]

I meant that the the type of gamers that will buy a PS3 or 360 will not buy a Wii instead. A "gamer" isn't going to sit there pondering whether they should be getting a Wii or a 360. They are getting the 360, and pondering whether or not they should be getting a Wii also.

I am that type of gamer (bought Unreal Tournament 3 for PC the day it came out) but I will most likely not buy a PS3 or 360 in addition to my Wii either.  For me, the Wii is to play games and genres that are not really playable on a PC, as well as for playing games with my family or friends or at parties.  Anything else I pretty much play on my PC.  Why on earth would anyone want to play a Bioshock, COD4, or UT3 with a gamepad anyway?   

Ok....


That is no different than what I said.

You substitute PC for PS3 or 360. What's the difference?

The point is that the Wii will not be your primary platform. It is a supplement.

[ahofle]

I guess I don't understand your point then.  Me (and at least a dozen other people I know) buying a Wii and not a PS3 is not doing anything to help Sony's sale figures compared to Nintendo's.  If it were the 360 or PS3 that caught my eye at the right time (or if the Wii was released as a conventional console with a gamepad), I would very likely have chosen a 360 or PS3 instead.  How is the Wii not in competition with the PS3?

[versapak]

I guess I don't understand your point then.  Me (and at least a dozen other people I know) buying a Wii and not a PS3 is not doing anything to help Sony's sale figures compared to Nintendo's.  If it were the 360 or PS3 that caught my eye at the right time (or if the Wii was released as a conventional console with a gamepad), I would very likely have chosen a 360 or PS3 instead.  How is the Wii not in competition with the PS3?

My point was nothing more than what I said. The Wii is not in direct competition with the PS3 or 360.

People buy 360s and PS3s for the same reason you have your PC.

I have no problem using a gamepad for my FPS controls, and don't really feel any burning desire to get into a console gamer vs pc gamer sort of debate. It is what it is.

"Gamers" aren't going to have a Wii as the primary gaming platform. That will be a PS3, 360 or PC.

My initial statement of the Wii being secondary system in the first place was just to say that its success doesn't have much bearing at all on Sony's possibilities in this generations market. It is between MS and Sony, while Nintendo is in a totally different happy place all by itself.

[ahofle]

You're basically saying that neither I, nor any non-"hardcore" console gamer could ever possibly buy a non-Wii system which is nonsense.  Had I stumbled upon a friend's PS3 and played Rock Band (or some other great non-Wii game that appealed to me) before I could have just as easily made the PS3 my system and gotten a free BluRay player as a side effect. 

I'm sure your point would go over well in the Sony boardroom.
"Ladies and gentlemen, as you can see from this slide, our sales are horribly below the Wii -- however if you look at figure 11.8, you will see that we are leaders in the 'h4rdc0r3 g4m3r' demographic which is all that matters for the future of our PS3 division." 

[DaveMMR]

The PS3 is not in direct competition with the Wii, but that, in fact, was one of Sony's big mistakes.  Sony should have been gunning for Nintendo from the get go.  For two generations Sony knocked the former champion off its perch into the bottom position.  They could have put the final nail in the coffin in this generation.  Instead, they decided to switch gears and create a needlessly expensive system that appeals only to the super-dedicated gamer.  So now Nintendo, their non-competitor is raking in the dough while Sony's game division is hemorrhaging profits.  Stockholders and third-party software developers don't want to hear how powerful the PS3 is anymore when the systems aren't selling.

[slycrel]

Versa, I will say that there is one person reading this thread who is the exact counterpoint to your argument.  Me.  I've chosen between the 360, ps3 and the wii.  I purchased a wii.  Would I like one of the other systems?  Sure.  Does that make me a non-gamer because I don't use the PS3, 360 or PC as my primary gaming platform?  I guess that's what is being discussed...  I don't believe that it does.

Maybe then, by your definition, I am not a "gamer".  (hardcore or otherwise)  I disagree, as I think many would.  Sure, there are a lot of "gamers" that will have either a ps3 or a 360 and that's the big choice.  There's also a segment of the market out there that is choosing the wii over the other 2 consoles as well.  For whatever reason people in this thread want you to make that concession instead of just drawing the line at gamer vs non-gamer with anything other than the wii as proof.

Personally, I don't care what you want to call it.  =)  I'm happy with what I got, and I don't really care who "wins" this generation.  There's lots to choose from when purchasing this time around, which is only a good thing.

[versapak]

Versa, I will say that there is one person reading this thread who is the exact counterpoint to your argument.  Me.  I've chosen between the 360, ps3 and the wii.  I purchased a wii.  Would I like one of the other systems?  Sure.  Does that make me a non-gamer because I don't use the PS3, 360 or PC as my primary gaming platform?  I guess that's what is being discussed...  I don't believe that it does.

Maybe then, by your definition, I am not a "gamer".  (hardcore or otherwise)  I disagree, as I think many would.  Sure, there are a lot of "gamers" that will have either a ps3 or a 360 and that's the big choice.  There's also a segment of the market out there that is choosing the wii over the other 2 consoles as well.  For whatever reason people in this thread want you to make that concession instead of just drawing the line at gamer vs non-gamer with anything other than the wii as proof.

Personally, I don't care what you want to call it.  =)  I'm happy with what I got, and I don't really care who "wins" this generation.  There's lots to choose from when purchasing this time around, which is only a good thing.

Of course people that buy a Wii are gamers. All it does is play games after all.


I guess I would say that you are not a hardcore gamer though, if the Wii was your choice for a primary gaming machine (and by gaming machine I don't mean just consoles but PC as well).


I would say that you are probably not a person that buys tons of console games, and spends tons of time playing them.

Heck I could be wrong though, and I certainly don't mean to speak in absolutes here. I have no scientific proof. I haven't done any proper polling.

I just look at the game library for the Wii, and go off my own and friends experience owning one.

The Wii is fun. The controls to lend to some interesting and fun gameplay. The experience isn't so great though, that traditional gaming and controls get tossed out the window.

If you can look at games like Orange Box, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and say that you don't really care that you won't be playing them, then yeah... You are not a hardcore gamer.

The big games will still appear on the more powerful traditional consoles, and if you are a hardcore gamer, those are games you will want. The Wii doesn't compete at all for that market share.


As for what DaveMMR said...

I don't think they should ignore that demographic that the Wii is tapping into, but that demographic isn't going to be buying a $400+ game system anyway, and the software attach rate they provide isn't very high. Software attach rate obviously being very important to a system that loses money on the hardware.

In order to compete in the market that Nintendo went for, they would have had to sacrifice all the power, and going back to earlier in this post...

Those new controls are fun, but they aren't fun enough to scrap traditional gaming altogether.

[slycrel]

You need to look at my avatar.  I'm not skipping out on the orange box at least.  =)

I guess you could say that I am a recovering hardcore gamer.  Just a few months ago I played WoW 25+ hours a week in addition to other games.  I pre-ordered the orange box for the PC and was playing TF2 as soon as the closed beta began for people who pre-ordered.  In the past I've been even more devoted.   I've done programming for games and helped in the creation of mods.

What it comes down to, for me, is that yes, I don't have tons of extra time to be playing games right now.  I can comfortably fit between 10 and 15 hours of gaming in a week without that coming at the expense of the rest of my life.  I may not be super hardcore right now, but I'm solidly a gamer.  At this point I'm choosing the wii over a 360 and ps3.  And the wii really is my primary gaming machine.

I don't believe I am alone out there with this choice.  Don't dismiss this segment of the market.  That's all people are saying.

[tommy]

For two generations Sony knocked the former champion off its perch into the bottom position.  They could have put the final nail in the coffin in this generation.  Instead, they decided to switch gears and create a needlessly expensive system that appeals only to the super-dedicated gamer. 

Personally, I would have thought people were ready for that super console and ready to spend crazy cash on it. Look how much some of these fancy laptops are going for that people have no problem buying, some of them are going for over 5 grand and they have no problem selling them.

I would have thought gamers and the market were calling for the best possible console that could be made and if it was expensive, so what. I think Sony thought so too.

Gaming sales have gone up and up and up the last few years and it would stand to reason that putting the strongest console on the market would have no problem selling. People want the best and call for the best but when it comes time to pay for the best, the settle for the rest, that screwed Sony.
 
Microsoft was the smartest this generation. Having your system the only one out here to choose from makes you a lot of money and makes people who want to buy a console not have to think about what one to get. To me, the only way all these console makers are going to make any real cash is to not all come out at the same time, but come out at least 1 year apart from the others to where there is only one new console out at the time and that is yours.

[versapak]

You need to look at my avatar.  I'm not skipping out on the orange box at least.  =)

I guess you could say that I am a recovering hardcore gamer.  Just a few months ago I played WoW 25+ hours a week in addition to other games.  I pre-ordered the orange box for the PC and was playing TF2 as soon as the closed beta began for people who pre-ordered.  In the past I've been even more devoted.   I've done programming for games and helped in the creation of mods.

What it comes down to, for me, is that yes, I don't have tons of extra time to be playing games right now.  I can comfortably fit between 10 and 15 hours of gaming in a week without that coming at the expense of the rest of my life.  I may not be super hardcore right now, but I'm solidly a gamer.  At this point I'm choosing the wii over a 360 and ps3.  And the wii really is my primary gaming machine.

I don't believe I am alone out there with this choice.  Don't dismiss this segment of the market.  That's all people are saying.

It sounds like you are saying that the Wii is your choice so that you play less games, which only further proves my point.


You do still have your PC though, and I would still be willing to bet that it does see more game time than your Wii will.

[ChadTower]

I guess I would say that you are not a hardcore gamer though, if the Wii was your choice for a primary gaming machine (and by gaming machine I don't mean just consoles but PC as well).

I'm not sure if I'm offended by this.  I think that depends on how he defines "hardcore gamer".

I would say that you are probably not a person that buys tons of console games, and spends tons of time playing them.

I own every domestic console except the PS3 and 360.  Some of them I have in stacks and for some I own a percentage of the library approaching 100%... hell I do have 100% for one of them (though that's the Virtual Boy  ).

If you can look at games like Orange Box, Call of Duty 4, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and say that you don't really care that you won't be playing them, then yeah... You are not a hardcore gamer.

So that's his definition.... hardcore gamer = fan of violent games.

That is the difference.  I am as much a gamer as anyone but I just don't bother with those games.  I see the 360 as a system primarily for the online play of violent games that don't appeal to me.  I see the PS3 as a system primarily for fans of HD eye candy.  That doesn't matter to me much either.  Having experienced pretty much everything video gaming has to offer, I've settled on the fun and probably moreso the zen of Nintendo first party games.  That doesn't make me less of a gamer - it makes me someone who wants to chill, not kill.

[ClubNinja]

If you can look at games like Orange Box...

So that's his definition.... hardcore gamer = fan of violent games.

I bought Orange Box almost exclusively for the included Portal, which is both non-violent and an absolute must-play.  Of course it doesn't justify the entire platform, but it's an example of the really good non-killing content available for the 360 and PS3 (content which makes up the majority of my libraries for both of those machines).

[ChadTower]

Looking at Portal on Wikipedia, it does look pretty cool... and knowing your familiarity with my preferences, I'll have to find a way to play this.  Wikipedia says it is available without the other games via Steam.  I try hard to avoid PC gaming because I sit all day at a PC but exceptions are sometimes made.

[versapak]

I give up.


No I don't define hardcore gamer as player of violent games, those just happen to be the big titles of the last few months on 360 (my primary gaming platform and the freshest games on my mind). Go figure.

I think Zelda, Metroid, and Mario fit nicely into that definition also.

The problem is that those are all Nintendo games, and as far as the Wii goes, I'd happily bet that like the last 2 generations, Nintendo titles will be the bulk of the "games to play" on the Wii.

My definition of a hardcore gamer is that you wouldn't be satisfied with just that.

I don't mean to imply at all that hardcore gamers don't own Wii's. There is just no way I can see that as the primary gaming platform of a hardcore gamer. One of the platforms they choose to game on yes, but not their primary. There just won't be enough substance to its library of games.

I'd love to be proven wrong on that, but there is nothing in history to suggest that I will be.




[EDIT]

For the record... Portal is THE reason to own Orange Box.


What an awesome experience.

[knave]

Looking at Portal on Wikipedia, it does look pretty cool... and knowing your familiarity with my preferences, I'll have to find a way to play this.  Wikipedia says it is available without the other games via Steam.  I try hard to avoid PC gaming because I sit all day at a PC but exceptions are sometimes made.

Speaking of nonviolent games, you all need to try Peggle.

I know it sounds too fuzzy and warm to be fun but of all the nonsensical games I've played on any platform it was the most addictively fun.  Give it a try you won't be sorry. This game completely took over the PC Gamer staff playtime for weeks because it's so fun.

Enough...

The Wii is competing with the other consoles in that lots of gamers are only going to choose one console. They may fall somewhere in between hardcore and casual. PC is  a platform but is not really comparable.  My home PC is also a tool. I pay bills, do homework, read news, email, pictures, watch TV and other videos, go shopping, etc...
As a add on bonus I get to play cool games on it and have for a long time...

Really I'm a hardcore PC gamer who got married, had kids and wants to find balance in my activities. I no longer have the time (I choose to focus less time on games) to play all the cool games so I pick the best two or three and play those. I still somehow put in hundreds of hours into Battlefield 2. and Halflife2/counterstrike...heck since I've found this forum I probably have a good  number of hours at my PC trying out games on Mame.

Anyway I'm not so sure the definitions of gamer are so easily defined.

[slycrel]

Versa, I think that in some way, shape or form you're defining hardcore gamer as one who is spending large amounts of time and/or money with games in general.

I used to be that guy.

I'm with knave.  I have other competing priorities right now.  I only have so much time for games because I choose to have a multi-faceted life.  Not because I don't want to game or am not interested in gaming.

And I also agree with Chad.  Because of the time investments involved I'm pretty picky about what I spend my time on.  Right now I've chosen the Wii because, as a gamer that's played a ton of the types of games that are out there, the wii has some of the nostalgia of the older system, but more importantly some of the "new" concepts that I want to explore as a gamer.  I've already explored the majority of gameplay types more or less to death that are around with the 360 and PS3.  I want something new.  Sure, incremental updates and changes are nice, and very groundbreaking for some people.  But the wii brings a whole new dimension of gameplay to the table.  Maybe it's just me, but the wii seems to be more socially involved, leading to my entire family enjoying themselves, not just me stuck in a headset playing online.  There's become a big difference there, and frankly I enjoy it more.  That's why LAN parties are so fun -- it's social as well as gaming.

I don't think I'm less of a gamer because my gameplay styles have changed.  I'm not a teen or college kid who has oodles of time or money to devote anymore.  I've got to be a lot more careful with my entertainment time and dollars.

Anyhow, I'm thinking we are arguing semantics at this point, apologies, I try not to do that.  =)

Edit:

Portal is the best game I've played probably in years.  Entertaining, interesting story, interesting gameplay, all the essential pieces of a classic game that will not soon be forgotten.  Oh yeah, and a cool credits song. 

[shmokes]

All this nonsense about the Wii not competing with the PS3 and 360 makes me laugh.  It's a ridiculous notion.  Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera are competitors, regardless of the fact that a large number of consumers will own the albums of both artists.

Developers/publishers spend a finite amount of dollars on videogame development.  The amount they divvy out to Nintendo's systems depends exclusively on Nintendo's competitive advantage over Sony and MS.  Additionally, people who make this crazy assertion act like competition ends the moment a hardware decision ends.  It doesn't, of course.  An owner of both a PS3 and a Wii makes a decision between the two systems every time he turns one on.  He makes a decision between the two when he goes to the store with $60 to purchase a game.  When Halo 3 and Mario Galaxy are both released at almost the same time, an owner of both a 360 and a Wii, who can only afford one game, has to choose who gets his money.  Nintendo competes for the mindshare and marketshare of gamers just like MS and Sony, and every minute that an Xbox 360 is being played is a minute of a gamer's time that Nintendo was unable to capitalize on.

Additionally, as Shardian pointed out a long time ago, a lot of systems (about half for non-Nintendo systems) are purchased by parents for kids.  Shardian's parents were not about to buy him another videogame console from the same generation of systems after they had already bought him another.  My parents were the same (largely because we were dirt poor).  When you've got a bunch of elementary/junior high/high school kids begging their parents for a Wii for Christmas, those kids are not getting a 360 or PS3 at least until their birthday or next Christmas, if at all. 

Nintendo IS NOT sitting on some brand new market with no competitors.  That's seriously ridiculous.  If you buy into it, you are merely buying into the marketing ---smurf-poop--- that Reggie Fils Aime is feeding you. 

[shmokes]

I used to be that guy. . . . I have other competing priorities right now.  I only have so much time for games because I choose to have a multi-faceted life.  Not because I don't want to game or am not interested in gaming.

In this regard, I'm with Versa.  You simply aren't a hardcore gamer anymore.  A hardcore skier who shatters his leg in an accident and can't ski anything like he used to isn't a hardcore skier anymore.  He's just a skier who used to be hardcore.  I too spend almost no time playing videogames anymore.  I'm a full-time law student with a 17-month old baby girl.  I get in maybe 3-5 hours of gaming per month lately.  Sad.  But I can't tell people that I'm a hardcore gamer, and proceed to tell them that I haven't played any of the latest and greatest, even if I'd really like to play those games given the opportunity.  Wishing he could still ski the way he used to is not enough to maintain the hardcore skier label.

[ChadTower]

I love how his analogy to having a 17 month old baby is a broken leg and permanent loss of ability.      

[versapak]

All this nonsense about the Wii not competing with the PS3 and 360 makes me laugh.  It's a ridiculous notion.  Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera are competitors, regardless of the fact that a large number of consumers will own the albums of both artists.

They are both the exact same genre of music though.


Do you think Britney Spears at all competes for or hurts the sales of Metallica?


Of course they compete in a way. Sony and MS no doubt want that market also, and yeah there are people out there that maybe would have bought a PS3 or 360 if the Wii didn't exist, but I don't think that is a huge chunk of the market.

Time will tell if I am wrong, but right now software attach rates are proving otherwise.

[tommy]

You try to tell all the decades of kids turned adults who have supported and bought every single Zelda and Mario game to ever hit store shelves that they are not hardcore gamers.

If Nintendo did not exist then this profit would be Xbox's profit or Sony's. They are definitely taking profit away and are in competition.

[ahofle]

Do you think Britney Spears at all competes for or hurts the sales of Metallica?

Please tell me the Wii isn't "Britney Spears" in this analogy. 

[AtomSmasher]

Well I believe I can still be considered a hardcore gamer, I don't play as much as I used to, but I still play around 20 hours a week gaming and I buy a minimum of one new game a month (usually I get several more then one a month).  Some of the recent games I've played have been the Orange Box, Bioshock, Crysis, Tabla Rasa, Hellgate: London, Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, Final Fantasy XII (I never like earlier FF games, so I waited until it hit $20 before getting it) and Resident Evil 4 (for the Wii, and yes the controls are much better then the GC version).

I admit the PC is my gaming system of choice, but I generally have one current gen console to play on as well.  If the Wii was not an option, then I would of bought a PS3 or a 360, so I can definately say that for this gamer, the Wii took sales from the other two consoles.

*edit* I should probably mention which consoles I own instead of making you figure it out from the game list.  I have a PC, a PS2, and a Wii.

[versapak]

You try to tell all the decades of kids turned adults who have supported and bought every single Zelda and Mario game to ever hit store shelves that they are not hardcore gamers.

Learn to read.

I never said anything to the contrary.

If Nintendo did not exist then this profit would be Xbox's profit or Sony's. They are definitely taking profit away and are in competition.

The whole point of the Wii is to tap into a market not held by traditional gaming, so no... That profit wouldn't be MS's or Sony's.

I have already stated that yeah, there is probably some sales loss from casual gamers that may have eventually chosen to get a 360 or PS3 if the Wii didn't exist, but I don't think it is that big of a loss. Only time will tell.

[versapak]

Do you think Britney Spears at all competes for or hurts the sales of Metallica?

Please tell me the Wii isn't "Britney Spears" in this analogy. 

Well... In the pre-trailor trash junkie days.

[versapak]

I admit the PC is my gaming system of choice, but I generally have one current gen console to play on as well.  If the Wii was not an option, then I would of bought a PS3 or a 360, so I can definately say that for this gamer, the Wii took a sale from the other two.

Fair enough.

As I stated earlier. I certainly don't mean to speak in absolutes. There are exceptions.

Though I doubt they lost that much in sales to your decision to get a Wii. Nintendo games FTW!

[slycrel]

I used to be that guy. . . . I have other competing priorities right now.  I only have so much time for games because I choose to have a multi-faceted life.  Not because I don't want to game or am not interested in gaming.

In this regard, I'm with Versa.  You simply aren't a hardcore gamer anymore.  A hardcore skier who shatters his leg in an accident and can't ski anything like he used to isn't a hardcore skier anymore.  He's just a skier who used to be hardcore.  I too spend almost no time playing videogames anymore.  I'm a full-time law student with a 17-month old baby girl.  I get in maybe 3-5 hours of gaming per month lately.  Sad.  But I can't tell people that I'm a hardcore gamer, and proceed to tell them that I haven't played any of the latest and greatest, even if I'd really like to play those games given the opportunity.  Wishing he could still ski the way he used to is not enough to maintain the hardcore skier label.

But in your example the skiier with the shattered leg doesn't have the option to ski anymore.  If I wanted to I could still be a "hardcore gamer".  There's a difference between choosing not to and not being able to do something.  The result may be the same, but there's a large difference.  To illustrate this point...  let's say person A is banned from playing xbox live.  Person B decides not to subscribe to xbox live.  The result is the same -- they both can't play on xbox live.  However once person has a choice, the other person does not.  Person B can still try to gain access, for example at person A's house or whatever, but fundamentally they have lost options where the other person has not.

So, in your example...  If an olympic medalist skiier chose to not ski as a primary purpose in life, but still kept up with the skiing world and still would ski on a regular basis what would that make them?  Hardcore or not hardcore?  Is the definition of hardcore simply a measure of time devoted to a topic/idea/game/whatever or is it something more?  There's the semantics coming out again.  My definition differs here from yours, and that's fine...  I'm just trying to get the message across that there are differing definitions.

The distinction that is being made here is either you are or you aren't, with the implication that if your primary gaming platform is the wii you aren't.  I'm not sure it's that simple, that's all I'm getting at.

(Wow, 4 replies posted since I started writing this...    )

[AtomSmasher]

Though I doubt they lost that much in sales to your decision to get a Wii. Nintendo games FTW!

Huh?  The nintendo games are the best games on the Wii, so its not exactly a surprise that I would get them.  If you believe that I may be a Nintendo fanboy, the Wii is the first Nintendo console I've owned since the original NES (excluding handhelds).  If I didn't have a Wii, then you can believe that I would of had pretty much every high end game on the 360 (as of right now, I would buy a 360 over a ps3).

*edit* Thinking about it, my older sister is actually the one who bought our family's NES, so I guess the Wii is technically the first Nintendo console I've ever owned (once again, excluding handhelds).

[tommy]

You try to tell all the decades of kids turned adults who have supported and bought every single Zelda and Mario game to ever hit store shelves that they are not hardcore gamers.

Learn to read.

I never said anything to the contrary.

Zelda, Metroid, and Mario fit nicely into that definition also.

My definition of a hardcore gamer is that you wouldn't be satisfied with just that.

 

[EDIT]

For the record... Portal is THE reason to own Orange Box.

You obviously never played HL2, HL2DM or TF2. Portal is good but is very short and is not alone worth buying the orange box.

[ChadTower]

The tommyfins just won their first game!  They won't go 0-16!   

[tommy]

The tommyfins just won their first game!  They won't go 0-16!   

Oh, I've won a ton more, it's just that no one here is willing to admit it. 

[versapak]

You try to tell all the decades of kids turned adults who have supported and bought every single Zelda and Mario game to ever hit store shelves that they are not hardcore gamers.

Learn to read.

I never said anything to the contrary.

Zelda, Metroid, and Mario fit nicely into that definition also.

My definition of a hardcore gamer is that you wouldn't be satisfied with just that.

 

[EDIT]

For the record... Portal is THE reason to own Orange Box.

You obviously never played HL2, HL2DM or TF2. Portal is good but is very short and is not alone worth buying the orange box.

I have Orange Box, and I love all the games on it. I don't mean that you should buy Orange Box only expecting to play Portal, but that it should maybe be the first thing you play, because it is that darn good.


I never said that people that play Zelda & Mario couldn't be hardcore gamers. I said the exact opposite. There isn't enough of those released regularly to say you are a hardcore gamer based on playing those alone though, and Nintendo doesn't have the quality 3rd party support that it had way back in the day when I grew up playing Zelda and Mario. You will miss out on whole heck of a lot more with only a Wii than you would have back in the day with only a SNES.

I guess if someone does indeed play the Wii for hours a day though, then yeah they are a hardcore gamer, but I personally don't see enough quality games on the Wii that will have anyone doing that for more than the traditional honeymoon period. The novelty of that controller does wear off, and 3rd parties aren't really doing anything worthwhile on the Wii. That did change on the DS though, so whatever...

It doesn't matter what I say, or even if I am wrong in saying it. Other than my dollars spent I have no impact on the market, and only time will tell if the Wii is the little engine that kicked the other engines in the nuts. My prediction is that the Wii will be just like the last 3 Nintendo consoles though.

A platform for Nintendo games.


All I ever meant by that darn not a direct competitor comment, is that I do not see the Wii's success as a being a reason for any Sony failure. For the most part it is a different kind of gaming.

[DaveMMR]

As for what DaveMMR said...

I don't think they should ignore that demographic that the Wii is tapping into, but that demographic isn't going to be buying a $400+ game system anyway, and the software attach rate they provide isn't very high. Software attach rate obviously being very important to a system that loses money on the hardware.

Exactly, Vera.  Nintendo's demographic is not going to spend more than $400 for a system.  And that's the problem.  Playstation 1 launched at $299 and Playstation 2 launched at $299.  Guess which two systems knocked Nintendo to third place.  If Sony stayed the course with Playstation 3 and delivered for the same price (by getting rid of the Blu-Ray, I'm sorry to say), they'd have a threepeat on their hands. 

But now, watch, and you'll see more third party developers are going to scramble right back to Nintendo.  Why?  Because that's who's selling all the systems.  Being in third place IS NOT good for the PS3's library (the same way it wasn't for the Nintendo the last two times out).  It's funny how well programmers can work within the limitations of a system's hardware when there's money to be made.

BTW I'm ignoring all the semantics over the definition of hard-core gamer right now.   

[versapak]

Exactly, Vera.  Nintendo's demographic is not going to spend more than $400 for a system.  And that's the problem.  Playstation 1 launched at $299 and Playstation 2 launched at $299.  Guess which two systems knocked Nintendo to third place.  If Sony stayed the course with Playstation 3 and delivered for the same price (by getting rid of the Blu-Ray, I'm sorry to say), they'd have a threepeat on their hands. 

But now, watch, and you'll see more third party developers are going to scramble right back to Nintendo.  Why?  Because that's who's selling all the systems.  Being in third place IS NOT good for the PS3's library (the same way it wasn't for the Nintendo the last two times out).  It's funny how well programmers can work within the limitations of a system's hardware when there's money to be made.

BTW I'm ignoring all the semantics over the definition of hard-core gamer right now.   

Yeah, you won't ever find me defending the price the PS3 launched at.


I am the kind of person that will buy all 3 of them, and give them all a decent amount of game purchasing support, but Sony definitely pushed me to the side for a while at those prices.

I wouldn't have wanted to see them launch with a last gen machine like the Wii, but there was definitely no need for that Blu-ray inclusion (for gaming consumers anyway, obviously there was need for Sony themselves to do it).

[DaveMMR]

Yeah, you won't ever find me defending the price the PS3 launched at.


I am the kind of person that will buy all 3 of them, and give them all a decent amount of game purchasing support, but Sony definitely pushed me to the side for a while at those prices.

I wouldn't have wanted to see them launch with a last gen machine like the Wii, but there was definitely no need for that Blu-ray inclusion (for gaming consumers anyway, obviously there was need for Sony themselves to do it).

Yeah, I think Sony totally threw their favorite child under the bus to win a format war.  Kind of sad - kind of dopey.

After all is said and done, I'll probably end up with all three by the end of this generation too.   Guess which one I'm buying last.   

[Grasshopper]

Yeah, I think Sony totally threw their favorite child under the bus to win a format war.  Kind of sad - kind of dopey.

It's definitely a very high risk strategy and also shows a lack of respect for gamers (which Sony deserves to be punished for) but it's too early to say whether it's dopey.

If Sony is able to establish Blu Ray as the de facto next gen DVD standard then the long term rewards for the company will be incalculable. I'm guessing that damage to the Playstation brand is a price they are willing to pay in order to achieve that aim. Of course they'd like both the PS3 and Blu Ray to be a success but I'm guessing that Blu Ray is a far higher priority.

However, there is still the possibility they could lose on both fronts in which case their decision to include Blu Ray with the PS3 could indeed end up seeming pretty dumb with the benefit of hindsight.

[shmokes]

Think of the sheer size of Sony, and how long they have been in the electronics business.  Now consider that over half of the company's profits come from the Playstation department and it begins to become clear how foolish it is for them to risk the Playstation business in order to establish BluRay.

[ChadTower]

That also points out how far the rest of their product lines have fallen from the days when Sony was high end average joe level product.

[Grasshopper]

That also points out how far the rest of their product lines have fallen from the days when Sony was high end average joe level product.

They probably recognise how dangerous it is to have all their eggs in one basket. Hence the need to establish Blu Ray.

[shmokes]

Sony is one of the biggest movie studios on the planet.  Sony is one of the biggest music studios on the planet.  Sony is one of the biggest consumer electronics manufacturers on the planet, making everything from DVD players to alarm clocks to robot dogs to cell phones.  They're in everything from banking to real estate.  I would hardly say they've got all there eggs in one basket.  They merely jeopardized and severely injured their golden egg in order to add another egg to the basket.  Dumb.

[Grasshopper]

.....  I would hardly say they've got all there eggs in one basket. .....

Well I was going by your observation that over half of Sony's profits come from the Playstation, which actually surprised me a great deal. I didn't realise quite how dependant on the Playstation they were.

[Zero_Hour]

.....  I would hardly say they've got all there eggs in one basket. .....

Well I was going by your observation that over half of Sony's profits come from the Playstation, which actually surprised me a great deal. I didn't realise quite how dependant on the Playstation they were.

I believe that the PS profit ratio was in regards to the Sony Electronics specifically, not the corporation as a whole, though admittedly, Sony Electronics accounts for the bulk of the Conglomerates total profits.

Apparently, Flat panel TV's are more than compensating for the slow adoption of PS3.
Recent Earnings report here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/25/technology/sony.php

[DaveMMR]

It's definitely a very high risk strategy and also shows a lack of respect for gamers (which Sony deserves to be punished for) but it's too early to say whether it's dopey.

If Sony is able to establish Blu Ray as the de facto next gen DVD standard then the long term rewards for the company will be incalculable. I'm guessing that damage to the Playstation brand is a price they are willing to pay in order to achieve that aim. Of course they'd like both the PS3 and Blu Ray to be a success but I'm guessing that Blu Ray is a far higher priority.

However, there is still the possibility they could lose on both fronts in which case their decision to include Blu Ray with the PS3 could indeed end up seeming pretty dumb with the benefit of hindsight.

In order for this gambit to pay off, Sony has to depend on: (a) people who want a Blu-Ray Player AND a next-gen console  (b) people who wanted the cheapest Blu-Ray player at the time of the PS3's release [no longer a factor] (c) gamers willing to pay any price for the newest console, despite lack of releases. 

Sony's doing decent on the Blu-Ray front (though they lost Paramount and Dreamworks -  two companies that also backed DIVX in '97 incidentally), but it's still not pushing the Playstation 3s.  Considering a Blu-Ray player can be had cheaper (and not all home theater enthusiasts are looking to play video games anyhow) that a PS3 nowadays, it's safe to say their gamble did not pay off the way they hoped at all. 

[shmokes]

Yeah . . . I don't remember whether the profit pie chart I saw (it was in my business management text book) was for the whole Sony Corp, or just Sony Electronics. 

At any rate, I agree that BluRay was a bad move.  Really bad.  It may have helped them establish BluRay, but that's not going to be nearly as profitable as originally hoped because all players will be dual-format a year from now.  Scratch that -- all players besides Sony-branded players will be dual format.  Sony won't face reality and build dual-format players for at least two or three more years, ensuring that their players bomb in the market place.  Hopefully they assumed during the planning stages that the prices for things like the blue laser diodes would come down more than they had by the time of launch, but by the time of launch it was just too late to scale things back to DVD.  Had they released it with regular DVD the market would look a whole lot different right now, IMO.

[Zero_Hour]

Jury is still out on the format wars, but score one for Sony -  Warner just announced that it will be dropping HD-DVD support to go solely with Blu-Ray sometime in '08.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/04/warner-goes-blu-ray-exclusive/



The whole should Sony have gone with DVD or Blu-Ray argument is its own beast, but should Blu-Ray prevail as the dominate Hi-Def Disc format, then those PS3's might look just a bit more attractive to buyers on the fence.

[shmokes]

And considering hardware sales numbers, it's probably fair to say that if BluRay wins it will be because of its inclusion in PS3.  I still think it was a bad business move either way, but . . .

[AtomSmasher]

And considering hardware sales numbers, it's probably fair to say that if BluRay wins it will be because of its inclusion in PS3.  I still think it was a bad business move either way, but . . .

Thats funny because it's probably also fair to say that if the PS3 loses it will be because of the inclusion of bluray.

[ChadTower]

Well I was going by your observation that over half of Sony's profits come from the Playstation, which actually surprised me a great deal. I didn't realise quite how dependant on the Playstation they were.

I was too.  Hard to say "half their profits come from one product" and "they're in everything from your ass to your mouth" in the same thread.  Either they're in everything and not making money on much of it or half their profits aren't coming from the Playstation brand.

[shmokes]

Since when did "half" and "all" mean exactly the same thing?

[Cakemeister]

My first DVD player was a PS2, and my first high-def DVD player will likely be a PS3. I don't see what people are complaining about the PS2 being a bad DVD player, it seemed fine to me.

All my TV sets are currently CRT models, so I don't currently plan on getting a high-def TV until one breaks. The one I watch in the bedroom is a 19" with screw terminal connections, circa 1980-something. My son has a 360 Elite so he is ready for a high-def TV if his current TV ever breaks. He's got an advanced connection on his, what they call "coax". I promised him a high-def TV if he would get As and Bs for his semester grades. I don't think I'll be paying on that one anytime soon.

[ChadTower]

Since when did "half" and "all" mean exactly the same thing?

Statistically, if they are in, say, 1500 products... and 1 of those products produces half of their profit... then none of those other products can even be remotely close to half unless all of the rest are near or below zero profit.  That's just basic math.

[Grasshopper]

Since when did "half" and "all" mean exactly the same thing?

Statistically, if they are in, say, 1500 products... and 1 of those products produces half of their profit... then none of those other products can even be remotely close to half unless all of the rest are near or below zero profit.  That's just basic math.

Indeed. The phrase “all your eggs in one basket” is not meant literally. It’s just an analogy and therefore doesn’t have to be that precise. I’m pretty sure that Sony doesn’t actually own any eggs (except maybe in the company canteen) or a basket to put them in.

The point I was trying to make is that, if shmokes’ statistic is correct, then Sony haven’t properly spread their risk. It’s a bad way to run a business especially a large multinational business. To borrow a phrase from the financial world, they don’t have a properly balanced portfolio.

That being said, I think it’s unlikely the PS3 will fail in the long run but if it does then Sony could potentially be in a lot of trouble.

[ChadTower]

Indeed. The phrase “all your eggs in one basket” is not meant literally. It’s just an analogy and therefore doesn’t have to be that precise.

It only becomes an issue when one takes the opposite stance in his very next post... which is what happened.  You can make one point, or the other, but if you try to make both it fails on principle.

[patrickl]

Since when did "half" and "all" mean exactly the same thing?

Statistically, if they are in, say, 1500 products... and 1 of those products produces half of their profit... then none of those other products can even be remotely close to half unless all of the rest are near or below zero profit.  That's just basic math.

It's more like they are in 3 markets (electronics, gaming and entertainment) where one market is more profitable than the other 2.

[shmokes]

I didn't say they had all there eggs in one basket and then turn around and take the opposite stance.  I said that one division of the company made up half their profit and it was stupid to expose that division to so much risk.  Then somebody else said that the problem is that they put all their eggs into one basket, to which I basically responded that the "all your eggs in one basket" idiom is probably not a very accurate way to describe Sony's business because they do not, in fact, have all their figurative eggs in one basket.  Obviously.  By my own description, they have half their eggs in one basket.  I.e., if the Playstation unit dies entirely, Sony will remain a viable, profitable company -- just not as profitable as it is today.  By contrast, for example, Nintendo would probably cease to exist if it's videogame division died. 

It simply isn't proper to use the "all your eggs in one basket" saying unless you are are betting the farm on one thing -- unless you put your entire retirement portfolio in Enron stock, etc.  If only half a person's portfolio is in Enron's stock, and the rest is spread out over dozens of companies and hedge funds, you simply wouldn't describe that person as putting all his eggs in one basket.  You might call him foolish for putting so many eggs in one basket, I suppose, but . . .


Anyway, that's actually not why I'm here.  I just thought I'd point out that Sony is already breaking even on hardware one year after release.  Costs $400 to manufacture, retails for $400.  So will we have a $200 PS3 next Christmas, or will Sony only drop it to $300 but make a tidy profit on hardware?  Plenty to get excited for if you don't want a PS3, though.  Just think what a $250 PS3 will do to the prices of the 360 and Wii!

[DaveMMR]

Anyway, that's actually not why I'm here.  I just thought I'd point out that Sony is already breaking even on hardware one year after release.  Costs $400 to manufacture, retails for $400.  So will we have a $200 PS3 next Christmas, or will Sony only drop it to $300 but make a tidy profit on hardware?  Plenty to get excited for if you don't want a PS3, though.  Just think what a $250 PS3 will do to the prices of the 360 and Wii!

I doubt you'll see it at $200 anytime soon.  I think $300 or $250 is that magic point where they'll start picking up some momentum. 

Also, I hate, hate, hate that they're jettisoning their backwards compatibility.  I have a PS2, but I also have limited space and plugs.  I could store/sell the Gamecube now thanks to the Wii and I could put the XBox to rest once I get a 360.  But now I have to hang onto a PS2 (which I keep flipping in all orientations because of that little laser tracking problem) while I have a PS3?   Not a big deal to some, but it doesn't sit well with me at all.   It's a luxury I've grown accustomed to by now.

[shmokes]

Agreed.  One of the primary reasons I wanted a PS3 over  360 is that I never owned a PS2, so I would be able to catch up on the few must-haves that I missed. 

On the other hand, since they're now doing it entirely in software, I doubt there will be any models being sold a year from now without at least basic backwards compatibility, even if not 100%.

[Samstag]

Agreed.  One of the primary reasons I wanted a PS3 over  360 is that I never owned a PS2, so I would be able to catch up on the few must-haves that I missed. 

On the other hand, since they're now doing it entirely in software, I doubt there will be any models being sold a year from now without at least basic backwards compatibility, even if not 100%.

They've already dropped software PS2 compatability in the 40 gig models.  I can't imagine any reason for doing this other than making an artificial difference in models.  The 40 does have hardware PS1 compatability.

[patrickl]

The 40GB version is a new design of the hardware. It lacks the hardware needed for PS2 support. First they took out the PS2 CPU and did that in software emulation. Now they also took out the PS2 graphics chip and there is no PS2 emulation possible anymore.

I'm pretty sure there is no full software PS2 emulation (well there is on the PC, but not on a PS3). There was always some hardware involved.

PS1 emulation was entirely done in software all the time so it still works.

[DaveMMR]

Actually, only the initial 20 and 60GB PS3s were hardware emulation, but then they started doing software emulation with the 80GB which, many have reported, was hit or miss.  The cheap, 40GB model drops it entirely.  There's a whole convoluted chart and timeline over at Wikipedia.  Buying a PS3 is almost like buying a car now.

[patrickl]

The 20GB and 60GB units have a EE+GS chip combining both the CPU and GPU of the PS2 and thus allowing full hardware emulation. The software emulation in the 80GB model only concerns the Emotion Engine (CPU). It still use the PS2's Graphics Synthesizer (GPU) for PS2 emulation.
You can call that software PS2 emulation, but there still is an important hardware component involved. This component has been removed from the 40GB model. Hence the "software" emulation is no longer possible on the 40GB model.

To be honest they could write full software emulation, but Sony claims they would need to write an emulator for every game. Making this a very expensive undertaking. So Sony decided to simply drop the whole backwards compatibility.

I'm not sure why the American version of the PS3 wiki pages don't mention this distinction, but if you don't believe me just google around a bit. Here is one example:
40GB PS3 missing key components for PS2 emulation

:edit:  The Wiki page on the PS3 does contain a reference (47) to this information: Sony Could Run BC On 40GB PS3s. They Just Don't Want To

[shmokes]

Why the ---fudgesicle--- would they need to write a separate emulator for each game?  That's absurd.  Let me put it this way, PS2 is less powerful than the Xbox in almost every way.  PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in almost every way.  Xbox 360 manages to emulate the majority of Xbox games, entirely in software, very well.  Now . . . let's see if we can't draw a reasonable conclusion about the possibility of emulating PS2 games in software on the PS3 based on what we know

[ChadTower]

The main difference is that Microsoft has an infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of typewriters writing in languages dominated by Microsoft and typewriters designed by Microsoft...

...Sony doesn't.

[Cakemeister]

I'm guessing the whole "separate emulators" story is just a smoke screen designed to conceal the fact that they still want to sell PS2s.

If Macrosoft was still selling the original XBox I would bet that the emulation on the 360 would be a lot less complete than it is.

[versapak]

PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in almost every way.

Ummm...

No it isn't.

Other than that though, I agree with you. 

[shardian]

PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in almost every way.

Ummm...

No it isn't.

Other than that though, I agree with you. 

You're gonna have to back that up. From what I have read, the PS3 is more powerful and has a greater potential, but is a different technology that is much harder for developers to use and take advantage of.

Powerful and superior are not interchangeable words if that was your stumbling block.

[ChadTower]

Hey look, you just reproduced the Saturn/PS1 debate.

Which machine was ultimately more successful that time?

[shmokes]

On the other hand, the Xbox was both more powerful, and easier to develop for than the PS2 and which of those two systems was the greater success?

Point is, I'm not arguing which is the better system.  I simply said that the PS3 is the technically superior system.  But even if it's not, my point was simply that the PS2 could obviously be emulated by the PS3 using a 100% software emulator if the Xbox can be emulated in software by the Xbox 360.  The Xbox is a typical Intel x86 processor, afterall, while the architecture of the Xbox 360 is entirely unrelated (IBM . . . powerpc, maybe . . . not sure).

[shardian]

Both the XBOX and 360 are pc based. The PS3 jumped to "cell technology", and it may be true that software emulation isn't directly compatible.

[shmokes]

360 isn't PC based.  It's a totally different architecture.

[patrickl]

On the other hand, the Xbox was both more powerful, and easier to develop for than the PS2 and which of those two systems was the greater success?

Point is, I'm not arguing which is the better system.  I simply said that the PS3 is the technically superior system.  But even if it's not, my point was simply that the PS2 could obviously be emulated by the PS3 using a 100% software emulator if the Xbox can be emulated in software by the Xbox 360.  The Xbox is a typical Intel x86 processor, afterall, while the architecture of the Xbox 360 is entirely unrelated (IBM . . . powerpc, maybe . . . not sure).

Shmokes, you are missing the point here though. Sony doesn't say that the PS3 cannot emulate the PS2 in software. They only say that they are unwilling to spend the amount of money that Microsoft spends on it. Microsoft makes the top selling titles compatible by individually setting up emulation for these games.

List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360

According to Microsoft, each game needs an emulation profile to run. These profiles can be downloaded through the Xbox Live service or from Xbox.com and burned on CD or DVD recordable media. They are also routinely distributed as part of the content on the Official Xbox Magazine monthly discs. The profiles are downloaded as a single bundle, and hence only need to be applied once per update (if doing so offline), or are automatically downloaded the first time a backwards-compatible game is inserted.

[shmokes]

Sure . . . just like many games in MAME don't work until someone fixes the sound or whatever.  I understand that the 360 isn't 100% backwards compatible, but it's also not as though MS has to write a new emulator for each game.  They wrote exactly one emulator.  Just by flipping the switch to "on" (figuratively speaking) they probably had tons of games running, many at 100%.  Then they went through and found games that weren't running at 100% and if they were popular, the emulator was tweaked so that it would run those games.  This is, of course, a gross simplification of the process, but you understand what I mean.

Oh . . . and I should point out that I was unaware that the 80 GB version still had a PS2 hardware component inside helping with emulation duties before you posted about it in this or another thread.  I suppose that probably does foreclose the possibility of backwards compatibility ever showing up on the 40GB PS3 or any others built around that hardware.  Technically possible, of course, just like it's done on 360, but realistically, the demand for the feature is probably not all that great.

[versapak]

You're gonna have to back that up. From what I have read, the PS3 is more powerful and has a greater potential, but is a different technology that is much harder for developers to use and take advantage of.

Powerful and superior are not interchangeable words if that was your stumbling block.

I have no stumbling block.


You can go do the research yourself, and find that most tech spec comparisons show the two consoles being pretty darn close, with each having advantages in different areas.


Even if the PS3 were to be calculated more powerful overall, it most certainly is not more powerful in almost every way.

 

[patrickl]

Well IIRC Sony claimed it's too expensive to do it the MS way. Maybe it would be cheaper to actually leave the graphics processor in.

BTW Xbox 360 only supports a few hundred Xbox games. For the PS2 there where over 5000 games.

By now there are plenty of PS3 games coming out so they probably guess they don't really need backwards compatibility anymore. So why spend a lot of money on it. They will probably even make money when people are forced to by PS3 games.

[versapak]

Well IIRC Sony claimed it's too expensive to do it the MS way. Maybe it would be cheaper to actually leave the graphics processor in.

BTW Xbox 360 only supports a few hundred Xbox games. For the PS2 there where over 5000 games.

By now there are plenty of PS3 games coming out so they probably guess they don't really need backwards compatibility anymore. So why spend a lot of money on it. They will probably even make money when people are forced to by PS3 games.

I love backward compatibility, and I want it there in case I ever have the urge to play one of my old games, but realistically...


It is extremely rare that I ever pull one of those old games out. I liked to think of backward compatibility as a selling point for me, but I can admit that it is a feature not much used, and wouldn't really be missed. We all went with generation after generation of no backward compatibility and we were all fine.

With the Wii it is a little different, since the Wii games themselves are not really much more (if any at all at this point) powerful than the backward compatible gamecube games.

Though it is something that I like the idea of, I can certainly see why it is not something worth spending a lot of money on, and it is an area I am willing to sacrifice to bring the costs of these new systems down.

[tommy]

I guess they figured just about everyone in the free world already has a PS2 and there is no need to really add it to the PS3. Hardly anyone really spends time playing last gen games on a new system, and if they do it's only for a small percentage of time as a novelty. If you buy a expensive console you want to take advantage of the new games made for it, not old games.

They also want you to buy a PS2 since they are still making games for it.

[ChadTower]

Hardly anyone really spends time playing last gen games on a new system, and if they do it's only for a small percentage of time as a novelty.

I do.  I play GC games on my Wii as much as I do Wii games.

[tommy]

I only have a Wii of this new gen of consoles and I do too play last gen games on it. For whatever reason If I did own a PS3 or a 360 I can say I would only play games made for the system on the system and not last gen games.

There is just something about the Wii that makes you want to play all the GC games on it. Maybe it's because they look just about like a Wii game.

[DaveMMR]

Hardly anyone really spends time playing last gen games on a new system, and if they do it's only for a small percentage of time as a novelty.

I do.  I play GC games on my Wii as much as I do Wii games.

Hell, I'm playing NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, TurboGrafx16, and Gamecube games on my Wii as much as Wii games.  Ultimate backwards compatibility (even if you have to technically re-buy the games older than GC).

[versapak]

Hardly anyone really spends time playing last gen games on a new system, and if they do it's only for a small percentage of time as a novelty.

I do.  I play GC games on my Wii as much as I do Wii games.

Hell, I'm playing NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, TurboGrafx16, and Gamecube games on my Wii as much as Wii games.  Ultimate backwards compatibility (even if you have to technically re-buy the games older than GC).

Emulated games from the Wii store don't count as backward compatible at all.

I play a lot more than that on my Xbox.


The Wii's GC playability is very nice though, since the Wii isn't much more powerful, it doesn't even really feel that much like you are playing last gen games in comparison.

[DaveMMR]

Hardly anyone really spends time playing last gen games on a new system, and if they do it's only for a small percentage of time as a novelty.

I do.  I play GC games on my Wii as much as I do Wii games.

Hell, I'm playing NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, TurboGrafx16, and Gamecube games on my Wii as much as Wii games.  Ultimate backwards compatibility (even if you have to technically re-buy the games older than GC).

Emulated games from the Wii store don't count as backward compatible at all.

I play a lot more than that on my Xbox.

I know - I cheated.  Because you can't use your old software and if you have NES/SNES/N64 cartridges, you effectively have to "rebuy" them to play them on the Wii.   

But I was trying to prove a point.  To the average consumer who doesn't know they can mod an X-Box and download roms and whatever, it is great that four generations worth of games can be played (legitimately) on one machine.  If you get bored with the Wii lineup, you can go to the online shop and pick up SMB3 or Starfox64.  If you get bored with PS3's lineup, on the other hand, you pretty much have no other recourse but to rent a BluRay movie.

[patrickl]

If you get bored with PS3's lineup, on the other hand, you pretty much have no other recourse but to rent a BluRay movie.

I guess the main point there is that the PS3 lineup is already better than that of the Wii. So you don't need to go back to old games on the PS3 anymore.

[DaveMMR]

If you get bored with PS3's lineup, on the other hand, you pretty much have no other recourse but to rent a BluRay movie.

I guess the main point there is that the PS3 lineup is already better than that of the Wii. So you don't need to go back to old games on the PS3 anymore.

That's entirely subjective.  I could turn around and tell you the exact opposite.  Not everyone likes the same games/genres/series as you do.   

And BS, there's always a reason to go back to older games.  Should "Gone With the Wind" be discontinued because "2 Fast 2 Furious" just came out?

[patrickl]

If you get bored with PS3's lineup, on the other hand, you pretty much have no other recourse but to rent a BluRay movie.

I guess the main point there is that the PS3 lineup is already better than that of the Wii. So you don't need to go back to old games on the PS3 anymore.

That's entirely subjective.  I could turn around and tell you the exact opposite.  Not everyone likes the same games/genres/series as you do.   

Magazines/websitesreview games and when you look at the reviews, there are more PS3 games with high (average) grades than there are Wii games with high grades.

[ChadTower]

Magazines/websitesreview games and when you look at the reviews, there are more PS3 games with high (average) grades than there are Wii games with high grades.

Sony buys more adspace than Nintendo does.

Those "reviews" are almost all bought and paid for on all sides.

[DaveMMR]

Magazines/websitesreview games and when you look at the reviews, there are more PS3 games with high (average) grades than there are Wii games with high grades.

Sony buys more adspace than Nintendo does.

Those "reviews" are almost all bought and paid for on all sides.

To add to that - there are games that receive excellent reviews I have no desire to play.  And again, reviews are opinions, not facts.

[patrickl]

Chad seriously. You have to be kidding that magazines will increase their rating on games because there are ads of these companies in their mag. The same companies make the Wii games so why would they even care?

Mind you that's from metacritics so they would have to been buying reviewers across the board.

Anyway, obviously Sony thinks the lineup is good enough to drop backwards compatibility. Besides they have a lot of impressive exclusives coming up.

[DaveMMR]

Anyway, obviously Sony thinks the lineup is good enough to drop backwards compatibility. Besides they have a lot of impressive exclusives coming up.

Confidence in their lineup is not the reason they're removing the backwards-compatibility.  It's a cost-cutting measure.

[patrickl]

I didn't say the lineup was the reason why they cut BC. It determines the timing.

[DaveMMR]

I didn't say the lineup was the reason why they cut BC. It determines the timing.

Okay, now I understand.   But it's still a dumb move on their part.   Even if every single game released for the system was A+ material, suddenly taking away the ability to play hundreds* of classic games (when it was initially present) is not going to be moving those PS3s.

*(Thousands have been released, but I'm going with a conservative classic-to-crap ratio).

Granted, I can see your point.  The timing is right.  They have a decent sized library so gamers are not left wanting.  But if you could only have one gaming system on your shelf, wouldn't you be picking up something with a higher quantity of better-than-average titles?  Sure the PS3 might have good games, but the PS2 has a lot more good games at this point (including some PS1 titles).  Same with the Xbox360 (Xbox games) and Wii (VC).     

[Cakemeister]

PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in almost every way.

Ummm...

No it isn't.

Other than that though, I agree with you. 

I was going to call BS on that until I read this link.

[patrickl]

PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in almost every way.

Ummm...

No it isn't.

Other than that though, I agree with you. 

I was going to call BS on that until I read this link.

I was surprised about how in this december 2006 comparison the graphics of the Xbox 360 look better than those of the PS3.

[ChadTower]

Chad seriously. You have to be kidding that magazines will increase their rating on games because there are ads of these companies in their mag.

Of course it does.  Get a job in any print medium... newspaper, magazine, hell even underground zine... if you want more positive coverage all you have to do is pay for it.  That's how that industry works, and since most major websites are an offshoot of that now, they work the same way.

The same companies make the Wii games so why would they even care?

That's not true...    How many major PS3 games exist on the Wii?   

[patrickl]

The same companies make the Wii games so why would they even care?

That's not true...    How many major PS3 games exist on the Wii?   

I said "same companies" not "same games". Apart from Nintento and Sony I doubt there are many companies that don't make games for both consoles.

[somunny]

Could another price drop be a week away?

http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=24454

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Several posters at SlickDeals.net are reporting that the PS3 may have yet another price drop towards the end of the month. Many are rumoring that a $299 PS3 will be announced on January 28. SlickDeals.net is a website dedicated to providing consumers with the latest prices in electronics, breaking the news of both of the previous PS3 price drops and the 360 price drop a few weeks early, along with the CheapAssGamer forums.

Though it does seem early for this to occur, Sony did recently announce that the price of manufacturing of the PS3 did drop from $800 per unit at the launch to $400 currently. This is mainly due to the success of Blu Ray, especially with Warner Bros. going Blu Ray exclusive earlier this month. Now there are also rumors that Paramount found a loophole in their HD DVD exclusivity contract and will be going Blu Ray as well - leaving Universal and Dreamworks as the only remaining HD DVD studios.

[danny_galaga]

Several posters at SlickDeals.net are reporting that the PS3 may have yet another price drop towards the end of the month. Many are rumoring that a $299 PS3 will be announced on January 28.

 

how much is the wii going for in the US?

[Dartful Dodger]

I paid $499 for mine two weeks ago, so that almost guarantees it'll drop to $299.

[ChadTower]

Dartful, could you buy a Tacoma?  I don't want to pay $20,000.   

[knave]

The backwards compatability of the Wii is really important to all of the new casual gamers who prieviously would never have bought a console and have never owned one.  Its a real bonus to buy a Wii and get access to all GC games as well.

[somunny]

The backwards compatability of the Wii is really important to all of the new casual gamers who prieviously would never have bought a console and have never owned one.  Its a real bonus to buy a Wii and get access to all GC games as well.

I would think that BC would be a non-issue to a "casual gamer".  Why would a person who has never bought a console care about playing games from a system they weren't interested in to begin with.

BC is important to the people with game collections.

[ahofle]

I would think that BC would be a non-issue to a "casual gamer".  Why would a person who has never bought a console care about playing games from a system they weren't interested in to begin with.

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

[somunny]

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

Okay, maybe you didn't have a GC collection but you're most likely not a casual gamer.

The point I was trying to make is that the average Joe or Jane that gets caught up in the Wii frenzy most likely has no idea that it will play a Gamecube game.

This is why I believe that BC doesn't matter to the casual gamer.  But that's just my opinion. 

[knave]

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

Exactly. The older games are dirt cheap and they all seem new to the gamer who hasn't seen them before.(ie. never owned a GC)  I still think some of the GC games look pretty nice.

[DaveMMR]

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

Okay, maybe you didn't have a GC collection but you're most likely not a casual gamer.

The point I was trying to make is that the average Joe or Jane that gets caught up in the Wii frenzy most likely has no idea that it will play a Gamecube game.

This is why I believe that BC doesn't matter to the casual gamer.  But that's just my opinion. 

It's hard to miss that the Wii plays GC games.  It's plastered all over the instructions and the options pop-up on the Wii menus. 

And just to clear things up, "casual gamer" doesn't mean "naive consumer".  Some people don't play games enough to justify buying an expensive console but is in the know enough to realize the potential of a system, including it's built-in library thanks to BC.  Plus I'm sure the ability to play every console release of the Metroid, Super Mario Bros. and Zelda (assuming you can find a copy of the collector's editions released for GC) series on one box moved at least a couple of systems.

[versapak]

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

Okay, maybe you didn't have a GC collection but you're most likely not a casual gamer.

The point I was trying to make is that the average Joe or Jane that gets caught up in the Wii frenzy most likely has no idea that it will play a Gamecube game.

This is why I believe that BC doesn't matter to the casual gamer.  But that's just my opinion. 

It's hard to miss that the Wii plays GC games.  It's plastered all over the instructions and the options pop-up on the Wii menus. 

And just to clear things up, "casual gamer" doesn't mean "naive consumer".  Some people don't play games enough to justify a large price tag but is in the know enough to realize the potential of a system, including it's built-in library thanks to BC. 

Again... I'll say that the Wii is a bit of an exception with backward compatibility.

It is only a real useful feature of that system, because brand new games for the Wii don't really look any better than gamecube games in the first place.

If it was a true next gen machine, then most people would spend very little if any time at all ever even looking at gamecube games with their Wii.


Again virtual console titles (a nice but way overpriced feature) don't count as backward compatible.

[knave]

Again... I'll say that the Wii is a bit of an exception with backward compatibility.

It is only a real useful feature of that system, because brand new games for the Wii don't really look any better than gamecube games in the first place.

If it was a true next gen machine, then most people would spend very little if any time at all ever even looking at gamecube games with their Wii.

Again virtual console titles (a nice but way overpriced feature) don't count as backward compatible.

I don't agree, If I were to get a 360 or a PS3 (that supported BC) there are a ton of xbox and PS2 games that I would love to play.  Especially since most of those games are now $9.99 or so.

I don't want to play these games bad enought to spend money on the older system but if my spiffy new system could play both new and old games I'd surely pick up those older titles.  Just like I'm doing with the Wii.

[versapak]

Again... I'll say that the Wii is a bit of an exception with backward compatibility.

It is only a real useful feature of that system, because brand new games for the Wii don't really look any better than gamecube games in the first place.

If it was a true next gen machine, then most people would spend very little if any time at all ever even looking at gamecube games with their Wii.

Again virtual console titles (a nice but way overpriced feature) don't count as backward compatible.

I don't agree, If I were to get a 360 or a PS3 (that supported BC) there are a ton of xbox and PS2 games that I would love to play.  Especially since most of those games are now $9.99 or so.

I don't want to play these games bad enought to spend money on the older system but if my spiffy new system could play both new and old games I'd surely pick up those older titles.  Just like I'm doing with the Wii.

No, you wouldn't.


There is a huge difference between GC games on a Wii and PS2 games on a PS3 or Xbox games on a 360. The Wii is pretty much just a gamecube, an add-on accessory and a new more feature filled dashboard.


Maybe you would play a couple titles, but the new releases will keep coming, and with each and every quality new release the already low chances of you playing an older release is less and less.


There are always exceptions, and maybe that exception is indeed you. You would definitely be the exception and very much the minority though.



I like having backward compatibility. I have a pretty large game library, and I like knowing that I could play those titles on my new machine if ever I get the itch, but the itch is more a thought then ever a reality.

[Dartful Dodger]

This is a situation where everyone is right.

When I was thinking about the wii I didn't know(or cared) it had BC.

But BC was the reason I spent 100 dollars more for a PS3. It was said earlier.  I'm not going to pay over 60 bucks for a game.  PS2 games are cheap and good enough.

Although if I knew the PS3 without BC was going to be release for 200 less, I would have waited.  I could have bought 3 games with that cash and by the time I bored of them the others would have come down in price.

[DaveMMR]

It is only a real useful feature of that system, because brand new games for the Wii don't really look any better than gamecube games in the first place.

If everyone were only playing games because they look good, then developers' jobs would be a heck of a lot easier.  How's about a game of Simon with prerendered cut scenes and realistic shading?  Doesn't sound terribly exciting, does it?  It's still just Simon.

And now I disagree with your assertion that it's useless as anything other than a system for playing old NES games.   Super Mario Galaxy is just way too much fun for it to be called a slouch in the game department.  That's probably the only game I need for quite some time.

If it was a true next gen machine, then most people would spend very little if any time at all ever even looking at gamecube games with their Wii.

People's definition of "Next Gen" always seems to revolve around graphics (I know you didn't say that explicitly but many people do equate one with the other).  Nintendo decided to take their definition in another direction.  It entails new way of interacting with the games (through motion control and, to a lesser extent, the Miis).   So, sorry, the Wii is no less "Next Gen" than the others. 

Yeah, the titles look like GC titles, but the GC wasn't exactly a slouch in the looks department.  If you're concentrating on how good a game looks, you may not be having fun with the actual gameplay. 

Again virtual console titles (a nice but way overpriced feature) don't count as backward compatible.

I was referring to Gamecube games.  That is a BC feature. Though I probably should have started a new paragraph when I brought up the gaming possibilities when you bring the VC into the mix.

And yeah, it is a bit pricey, but it's not horrible.

[versapak]

If everyone were only playing games because they look good, then developers' jobs would be a heck of a lot easier.  How's about a game of Simon with prerendered cut scenes and realistic shading?  Doesn't sound terribly exciting, does it?  It's still just Simon.

And now I disagree with your assertion that it's useless as anything other than a system for playing old NES games.   Super Mario Galaxy is just way too much fun for it to be called a slouch in the game department.  That's probably the only game I need for quite some time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People's definition of "Next Gen" always seems to revolve around graphics (I know you didn't say that explicitly but many people do equate one with the other).  Nintendo decided to take their definition in another direction.  It entails new way of interacting with the games (through motion control and, to a lesser extent, the Miis).   So, sorry, the Wii is no less "Next Gen" than the others. 

Yeah, the titles look like GC titles, but the GC wasn't exactly a slouch in the looks department.  If you're concentrating on how good a game looks, you may not be having fun with the actual gameplay. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was referring to Gamecube games.  That is a BC feature. Though I probably should have started a new paragraph when I brought up the gaming possibilities when you bring the VC into the mix.

And yeah, it is a bit pricey, but it's not horrible.

I am not only talking graphics, but graphics very much are a huge part of next gen.


If they weren't then, why bother upgrading from a NES to a SNES?

That is only one aspect though, and the Wii is behind a generation in several.

It lacks digital surround sound. It lacks processing power, which goes into things such as physics. It lacks ram which, can limit the size of its worlds, or at least what you can see/access of them. It lacks storage space for those nifty downloads they do offer, and prevents options for other downloads that other systems will see (Rock Band on the Wii? Have fun missing out on the massive amounts of great downloadable content).

The Wii does have an alternative take on gaming interaction, in a sense that is next gen, but it is almost all novelty, and it isn't anything that couldn't be done on any other system with a simple add-on.

Once you are into a game, if the controls are great, there isn't much thinking about them, and as such... There hasn't been some underlying need in gaming for a control revolution.

Gamecube games look just like Wii games (mostly... The Wii does at least have 16x9 support). They just happen to control like every other generation of games, which has been fine.

My point was not to say that the GC had ugly gfx. It didn't. My point was simply that there is hardly a generation gap between GC and Wii games. The only gap that is there is one that was never really an issue anyway, so playing GC games on a Wii doesn't feel at all like playing old outdated games in comparison to playing Wii games.

That can't really be said about Xbox and PS2 games played via BC on their successors. 360 and PS3 games definitely do make those games feel dated.


Now... I never asserted anything about a Wii being a system useless for playing anything but old NES titles, so I will just chalk that up to you replying to someone else.

[DaveMMR]

I am not only talking graphics, but graphics very much are a huge part of next gen.


If they weren't then, why bother upgrading from a NES to a SNES?

That is only one aspect though, and the Wii is behind a generation in several.

It lacks digital surround sound. It lacks processing power, which goes into things such as physics. It lacks ram which, can limit the size of its worlds, or at least what you can see/access of them. It lacks storage space for those nifty downloads they do offer, and prevents options for other downloads that other systems will see (Rock Band on the Wii? Have fun missing out on the massive amounts of great downloadable content).

The Wii does have an alternative take on gaming interaction, in a sense that is next gen, but it is almost all novelty, and it isn't anything that couldn't be done on any other system with a simple add-on.

Once you are into a game, if the controls are great, there isn't much thinking about them, and as such... There hasn't been some underlying need in gaming for a control revolution.

Gamecube games look just like Wii games (mostly... The Wii does at least have 16x9 support). They just happen to control like every other generation of games, which has been fine.

My point was not to say that the GC had ugly gfx. It didn't. My point was simply that there is hardly a generation gap between GC and Wii games. The only gap that is there is one that was never really an issue anyway, so playing GC games on a Wii doesn't feel at all like playing old outdated games in comparison to playing Wii games.

That can't really be said about Xbox and PS2 games played via BC on their successors. 360 and PS3 games definitely do make those games feel dated.


Now... I never asserted anything about a Wii being a system useless for playing anything but old NES titles, so I will just chalk that up to you replying to someone else.

Actually, I was responding to you thinking you said the Wii was only good for NES titles, but I went back and realized I misread.  So I'll take back that you made that comment. 

Far be it from me to argue the fact that Wii is the least powerful system of the current generation.  And yeah, when it comes to "next-gen" content, they're lacking in spec sheet buzz words.  But let us rewind to page one of this thread where we were discussing Sony and their current third place position (especially when they could have had first oh so easily).  That's where all this discussion comes full circle.  Despite the lack of, as you said, digital surround sound, processing power, ram, storage, graphical, etc., Nintendo's still currently holding the top position in worldwide sales (source).  Sony, swimming in most, if not all, of the above... last.

And perhaps the Wiimote is a novelty, but a novelty that works quite well when the developers use it wisely and not abuse it (on the flip side, there are some games that tack on needless Wiimote interactivity).  The hardcore controller jockeys may scoff at it, but non-traditional gamers (e.g. - my girlfriend, her friends, their parents) love it to death.  So perhaps that's Nintendo's idea of "next gen", bringing games to those who normally wouldn't play games.   Doesn't seem to be hurting their bottom-line. 

And here's the thing: for the traditional non-gamers (and gamers trying to get non-gamers into gaming), there WAS an underlying need for a control revolution.  Back in the days, games used to be "pick-up-and-play".  Now, suddenly, we're jockeying eight to ten different action buttons while maneuvering two control sticks.  Playing a new game means spending a good half-hour in some tutorial just to learn how to jump.  Nintendo wanted to bring gaming to those without the patience or ability to know which of the numerous face buttons executes an action.   And they did a pretty good job.

By the way, don't think I'll be playing Rock Band on the Wii.  When it comes to certain games, the XBox 360 may be a better choice.  I'll agree with you there.  There are games that are just crying for a powerful machine to be used, and I'm not discounting the purchase of another next-gen console for more hardcore gaming.

Reading back, I think somewhere along the line there was some derailment of discussion when we were talking about backwards compatibility.  That's most likely my fault.  So let me bring us back to that.  Despite the graphical similarities between the Wii and GC, a library of games is a library of games.  There's a possibility PS3 owners never owned a PS2 or PS1 and Sony cut out a large library of playable games from their struggling system.  They can stand to be making back their losses with PS2 software sales*, but instead opted to make the PS3 less versatile.   Not a great move from any standpoint. 

(*I believe the PS2 outsold everyone during the 2006 holiday season, so I admit the money Sony could make from PS2 software sales for PS3-only owners is probably not as great as I may have made it seem.)

[danny_galaga]

I would think that BC would be a non-issue to a "casual gamer".  Why would a person who has never bought a console care about playing games from a system they weren't interested in to begin with.

Because the games are $8 instead of $50.  That was the reason I was excited about the Wii's BC anyway.

yep, and in fact i bought 'viewtiful joe' for a wii i havent yet got!

[versapak]

Actually, I was responding to you thinking you said the Wii was only good for NES titles, but I went back and realized I misread.  So I'll take back that you made that comment. 

Far be it from me to argue the fact that Wii is the least powerful system of the current generation.  And yeah, when it comes to "next-gen" content, they're lacking in spec sheet buzz words.  But let us rewind to page one of this thread where we were discussing Sony and their current third place position (especially when they could have had first oh so easily).  That's where all this discussion comes full circle.  Despite the lack of, as you said, digital surround sound, processing power, ram, storage, graphical, etc., Nintendo's still currently holding the top position in worldwide sales (source).  Sony, swimming in most, if not all, of the above... last.

And perhaps the Wiimote is a novelty, but a novelty that works quite well when the developers use it wisely and not abuse it (on the flip side, there are some games that tack on needless Wiimote interactivity).  The hardcore controller jockeys may scoff at it, but non-traditional gamers (e.g. - my girlfriend, her friends, their parents) love it to death.  So perhaps that's Nintendo's idea of "next gen", bringing games to those who normally wouldn't play games.   Doesn't seem to be hurting their bottom-line. 

And here's the thing: for the traditional non-gamers (and gamers trying to get non-gamers into gaming), there WAS an underlying need for a control revolution.  Back in the days, games used to be "pick-up-and-play".  Now, suddenly, we're jockeying eight to ten different action buttons while maneuvering two control sticks.  Playing a new game means spending a good half-hour in some tutorial just to learn how to jump.  Nintendo wanted to bring gaming to those without the patience or ability to know which of the numerous face buttons executes an action.   And they did a pretty good job.

By the way, don't think I'll be playing Rock Band on the Wii.  When it comes to certain games, the XBox 360 may be a better choice.  I'll agree with you there.  There are games that are just crying for a powerful machine to be used, and I'm not discounting the purchase of another next-gen console for more hardcore gaming.

Reading back, I think somewhere along the line there was some derailment of discussion when we were talking about backwards compatibility.  That's most likely my fault.  So let me bring us back to that.  Despite the graphical similarities between the Wii and GC, a library of games is a library of games.  There's a possibility PS3 owners never owned a PS2 or PS1 and Sony cut out a large library of playable games from their struggling system.  They can stand to be making back their losses with PS2 software sales*, but instead opted to make the PS3 less versatile.   Not a great move from any standpoint. 

(*I believe the PS2 outsold everyone during the 2006 holiday season, so I admit the money Sony could make from PS2 software sales for PS3-only owners is probably not as great as I may have made it seem.)

Yeah...


Look at those great Wii system sold numbers. They are indeed great.

Now show me the great software sales that they have led to.


That has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the conversation though.

My sole point, as in the ONLY one I was trying to make, is that the Wii and the Gamecube are so close in ability, that playing gamecube games via backward compatibility barely even a shows a difference in generations. I didn't even mean that as a bad thing about the Wii, but just a reason why it is likely to be a much more used feature on the Wii than other consoles.

If you want to believe that new controller is such a huge generational leap, that it actually makes gamecube games feel as dated as the 360 makes Xbox games feel & likewise with PS3 & 2, then yeah... Whatever... Clearly I'd be just as well talking to the monkey or the block of wood.

[knave]

...the Wii and the Gamecube are so close in ability, that playing gamecube games via backward compatibility barely even a shows a difference in generations.

With that I do agree with you...the GC games look great on my Wii.

My only point is that there are lots of gamers who appreciate the affordable option of picking out highly rated games from the previous generation's library and playing them on a new generation console.

[DaveMMR]

Now show me the great software sales that they have led to.

Actually, Super Mario Galaxy and Wii Play (with Remote) placed 1st and 3rd, respectively on the Top 20 sales chart (based on Amazon sales for Nov/Dec. as found in the latest EGM).  Actually, of the 20 spots, 8 were Wii games, 6 were Xbox 360 games, 5 were DS games, 1 was a PS2 game and 0 were PS3 games.   

I didn't even mean that as a bad thing about the Wii, but just a reason why it is likely to be a much more used feature on the Wii than other consoles.

My original point was that a game is more than just graphics and that's why it's not this humongous leap of faith that people may actually want to play older classics based solely on the fact it's simply a great game, last generation or not.  Just ask all the people that suddenly sent the sales of the original Grand Theft Auto (and GTA2) upwards shortly after GTA3 was released.  Granted, the top-down GTA's were not great games by any means, but it does show that people do look to the past on their new machines.

If you want to believe that new controller is such a huge generational leap, that it actually makes gamecube games feel as dated as the 360 makes Xbox games feel & likewise with PS3 & 2, then yeah... Whatever... Clearly I'd be just as well talking to the monkey or the block of wood.

Yeah, I know those Wiimotes are just silly toys to the hardcore, but some people do enjoy them.   And perhaps it does make GC releases feel dated.  What Wii owner would buy the GC version of Twilight Princess over the Wii version?  On the other hand, what does it really matter?  If you're playing a game and the only thought in your head is "wow, this looks dated" then you are clearly not enjoying what you're playing and should stop immediately. 

Give my regards to the wooden monkeys. 

[versapak]

I never said graphics were the only thing. That seems to be your own little mental block there.


Graphics are the first and most obvious thing, and they encompass a great deal of things, such as, higher quality textures, more detailed 3d models, higher resolution with much better anti-aliasing for an overall clearer picture...

That alone does indeed make a game feel dated, but that is not the only thing. Better use of sound. Better use of storage and the options it provides. Better physics, which effect your overall interaction with a world.


The only thing the Wii has really improved for its game library over the last generation is the controller.

It is something that could be added to any machine though, and they could have easily made a controller exactly like the Wii one for the GC and have the EXACT same games and not notice any difference. The only reason there is even a Wii to go with that controller, is because add-ons don't generally sell well.

I play racing games with a force feedback racing wheel. I find it hard to go back to playing with a controller. If I were to though, it would not take long before I felt comfortable with that controller again. Controls, when they work well, are something that are a subconscious part of gaming.

The Wii actually makes a game out of using the controller, and that aspect is indeed fun. It is no different than any other controller though. It is all about the games utilization of that controller that makes it what it is.

If they feel good with the controls they were designed for, then the gaming experience takes over. The controls become something you don't think about.

The visuals, audio, and the world you are playing in are a more a conscious thing right in front of you though.

I have no problem going back and playing older games and enjoying them, so don't be confused as to what I am saying. It has nothing to do with game quality. It is simply that when you put an Xbox game or a PS2 game into a 360 or PS3 respectively, you notice very easily that you are playing a last gen game.

When you put a GC game into a Wii it is not such difference. In essence... You are simply just using a controller instead of a wheel.

Did you hold that Wii controller and start thinking, "Damn... I never want to hold a regular controller again."?

No, you didn't. I wouldn't buy for a second otherwise, and that being is a clear reason why GC games on a Wii, which designed to work well with "standard" control pads, don't feel anywhere near as dated as last generation games do on the other systems.

[DaveMMR]

I never said graphics were the only thing. That seems to be your own little mental block there.


Graphics are the first and most obvious thing, and they encompass a great deal of things, such as, higher quality textures, more detailed 3d models, higher resolution with much better anti-aliasing for an overall clearer picture...

That alone does indeed make a game feel dated, but that is not the only thing. Better use of sound. Better use of storage and the options it provides. Better physics, which effect your overall interaction with a world.


The only thing the Wii has really improved for its game library over the last generation is the controller.

It is something that could be added to any machine though, and they could have easily made a controller exactly like the Wii one for the GC and have the EXACT same games and not notice any difference. The only reason there is even a Wii to go with that controller, is because add-ons don't generally sell well.

I play racing games with a force feedback racing wheel. I find it hard to go back to playing with a controller. If I were to though, it would not take long before I felt comfortable with that controller again. Controls, when they work well, are something that are a subconscious part of gaming.

The Wii actually makes a game out of using the controller, and that aspect is indeed fun. It is no different than any other controller though. It is all about the games utilization of that controller that makes it what it is.

If they feel good with the controls they were designed for, then the gaming experience takes over. The controls become something you don't think about.

The visuals, audio, and the world you are playing in are a more a conscious thing right in front of you though.

I have no problem going back and playing older games and enjoying them, so don't be confused as to what I am saying. It has nothing to do with game quality. It is simply that when you put an Xbox game or a PS2 game into a 360 or PS3 respectively, you notice very easily that you are playing a last gen game.

When you put a GC game into a Wii it is not such difference. In essence... You are simply just using a controller instead of a wheel.

Did you hold that Wii controller and start thinking, "Damn... I never want to hold a regular controller again."?

No, you didn't. I wouldn't buy for a second otherwise, and that being is a clear reason why GC games on a Wii, which designed to work well with "standard" control pads, don't feel anywhere near as dated as last generation games do on the other systems.

Well in all fairness, you're selling point seemed to be on Wii games looking like GC games (the key word was "looks").  So it's not a mental block, it's what I gathered from your argument.  But I will give you the benefit of the doubt there. 

Also, I will see that you have no official stance against backwards compatibility.  Never really thought you did.  I just gather that you see it as more of a "curiosity" feature than a real viable selling point for a system.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

But for me, it's most definitely a selling point.  You'd think I'd be playing more GC titles on the Wii than I would PS2 games on the PS3, but I think the exact opposite.  I don't want to keep my PS2 around when I have a PS3 (space and wiring concerns), but I don't want to give up some of those great games I have.  And the ones I'm talking about (Rez, Katamari Damacy, Bombastic, Hot Shots Golf, Activision Classics) looked dated when they were first released so for me it's a non-issue anyhow.

I'm not saying I'm always going to use it.  I just like having the option and a clutter free entertainment center.

On a seperate note: I like to think that the Wii has more potential than just a system with a unique controller method.  I see is as a system with some good, exclusive titles.   The title I'm anticipating the most (Super Smash Bros. Brawl) doesn't even require any Wiimote antics (you can use a classic controller or GC controller if you'd like).  Nintendo, as reviled as they are by the hardcores, makes a damn good game. 

Postscript: I'm trying really hard not to paint myself as a Nintendo fanboy, because I enjoy my PS2 and Xbox (hopefully soon to be upgraded to Xbox 360) too.  But it just seems that in this generation, only Microsoft and Nintendo are appealing to their audience.  And I have to admit that I'm kind of nostalgically giddy that Nintendo is on top again.  But Sony, on the other hand, let it's hubris market their latest system.  It's sad.  Before the original price announcement, the PS3 was first on my shopping list...

[versapak]

Well in all fairness, you're selling point seemed to be on Wii games looking like GC games (the key word was "looks").  So it's not a mental block, it's what I gathered from your argument.  But I will give you the benefit of the doubt there. 

Also, I will see that you have no official stance against backwards compatibility.  Never really thought you did.  I just gather that you see it as more of a "curiosity" feature than a real viable selling point for a system.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. 

But for me, it's most definitely a selling point.  You'd think I'd be playing more GC titles on the Wii than I would PS2 games on the PS3, but I think the exact opposite.  I don't want to keep my PS2 around when I have a PS3 (space and wiring concerns), but I don't want to give up some of those great games I have.  And the ones I'm talking about (Rez, Katamari Damacy, Bombastic, Hot Shots Golf, Activision Classics) looked dated when they were first released so for me it's a non-issue anyhow.

I'm not saying I'm always going to use it.  I just like having the option and a clutter free entertainment center.

On a seperate note: I like to think that the Wii has more potential than just a system with a unique controller method.  I see is as a system with some good, exclusive titles.   The title I'm anticipating the most (Super Smash Bros. Brawl) doesn't even require any Wiimote antics (you can use a classic controller or GC controller if you'd like).  Nintendo, as reviled as they are by the hardcores, makes a damn good game. 

Postscript: I'm trying really hard not to paint myself as a Nintendo fanboy, because I enjoy my PS2 and Xbox (hopefully soon to be upgraded to Xbox 360) too.  But it just seems that in this generation, only Microsoft and Nintendo are appealing to their audience.  And I have to admit that I'm kind of nostalgically giddy that Nintendo is on top again.  But Sony, on the other hand, let it's hubris market their latest system.  It's sad.  Before the original price announcement, the PS3 was first on my shopping list...

I do actually see backward compatibility as a selling feature.


As pointed out in a previous post way back in here, I did actually think of it as a selling point for me.

It is just that in reality is is seldom used. It is more a piece of mind/comfort that it is there than it is an actual feature that is in the forefront.

I am more likely to buy a system with backward compatibility (PS3 with vs PS3 without), but if it never was an option... It most likely wouldn't be an option I would really truly miss. We went for generations without it ever even being an option.

On the Wii it really is more like an extension of its games library than it is an option to play old games. That is probably a better wording I should have used.

I don't really think of the Wii as a just a system with a unique controller either. I stand by my statement that its only significant new hardware advancement is something that could have been simply added to the gamecube, but as a whole...

The Wii is part of a new philosophy on games from Nintendo. They are doing unique and fun things with their systems, instead of trying to just compete with the most powerful and prettiest.

I personally LOVE the DS. I own 3 of them, and my kids and I love gaming together on them. I think the Wii, like the DS it is apparently going to take some time for some quality stuff to come from anyone but Nintendo, but I do believe that Nintendo is on a great path.

I love the powerful and beautiful too, but at the core it is always about fun, and the Wii is another way to have that fun. I think it is a great complimentary system to the other more "traditional" gaming machines.

[knave]

One thing that I really like about backward compatibility is that it allows me to cherry pick from an already established library of games.

My game time is limited.  I have no desire to play all the games out there.  I only want to play the best games out there.  So when I picked up a Wii I looked up the highest rated games and bought the ones that interested me. It also was a bargain.

If I were to pick up a 360 or a PS3 I would do the same thing.  Those are the games I would play for a long time.  I'm not likely to get a current release unless it is awesome, and even then I'm likely to wait a while.  I want to get Smash bros. Brawl someday but not at release...

...I'll grab it after I'm done with all the really fun games I have.

It's my patience and willingness to wait that makes me get so much value out of BC. 

[ChadTower]

Graphics are the first and most obvious thing

A great, great many people disagree with this, myself included.  I don't care if a game looks more real than real life - if it's no fun, I won't give it more than a few minutes, if I even bother picking up the controller. 

[versapak]

Graphics are the first and most obvious thing

A great, great many people disagree with this, myself included.  I don't care if a game looks more real than real life - if it's no fun, I won't give it more than a few minutes, if I even bother picking up the controller. 

BS


When a game boots up, its looks are the first thing you see, and it has nothing to do with looking more real than real life.


Better texturing, draw distance, higher resolution...

All those things make any style of game look better, and it is the first thing you will see in a new game.

I never said that is the first thing a person looks for in a good game, but it is indeed the very first thing you will see when playing a game. When you boot up an old game, whether the game is amazing fun or not, you will first see its graphical quality, and that will date the game to a prior generation no matter what.

It is not like I have said anything about the quality of games. Of course a game has to be fun. It is like you are trying to make an argument about something I have never even said.

[ChadTower]

When a game boots up, its looks are the first thing you see, and it has nothing to do with looking more real than real life.

I pay very little attention to the title screen or graphic quality until well after I've decided whether or not I like the game.  I may see it, but I don't look at it, and for the most part won't even later.  A fun game is a fun game.  I don't care if it looks like an NES game or if it looks like a 1080p movie.

There is no "dating a game" in my eyes because the graphics are of little relevance.  You need to accept that some people just don't care very much how graphically advanced a game may or may not be.

[patrickl]

The people why buy a PS3 are not likely to be part of the "some people" who don't see the better graphics.

[ChadTower]

The people why buy a PS3 are not likely to be part of the "some people" who don't see the better graphics.

The debate has since expanded to backwards compatbility and the Wii was brought into play as a relevant example.  It is no longer limited to PS3 buyers.

[versapak]

When a game boots up, its looks are the first thing you see, and it has nothing to do with looking more real than real life.

I pay very little attention to the title screen or graphic quality until well after I've decided whether or not I like the game.  I may see it, but I don't look at it, and for the most part won't even later.  A fun game is a fun game.  I don't care if it looks like an NES game or if it looks like a 1080p movie.

There is no "dating a game" in my eyes because the graphics are of little relevance.  You need to accept that some people just don't care very much how graphically advanced a game may or may not be.

Again...


BS.


If you go play a NES game right now, you will darn well recognize that you are playing an old NES game. Again, I have said nothing about the fun of the games, but to say you don't notice the dating of the game is nothing but complete BS.

You may not care that it is an older game. I personally don't care if it is an older game. A fun game is a fun game, but that has literally nothing to do with what I was saying.

When a game boots up, the first sign of it being dated will be its graphics. Whether that has absolutely any impact on your playing of the game is a moot point. That is the first and most noticeable sign to anyone that has working eyesight.

Plain and simple.


Your argument is ridiculous. I don't see until I enjoy the game enough to see? Seriously... What the heck is that? 


I don't judge a game overall until I have played it. I have enjoyed some pretty darn ugly games. I still enjoy many games from several generations of gaming. I am pretty sure that there is the whole point of this site, but what the heck does that have to do with being able to see a game is older.

I can boot up an Xbox game on a 360, and the very first sign that it is not a 360 game is its visuals. I don't care about that, but I can certainly see it.

Same goes for a PS2 game on a PS3.


That is not really the case on the Wii. You boot up a GC game, and you don't first notice that is is an older title because of its visuals, because there is very little (if any in most cases so far) difference in the visuals between the two.

[patrickl]

The people why buy a PS3 are not likely to be part of the "some people" who don't see the better graphics.

The debate has since expanded to backwards compatbility and the Wii was brought into play as a relevant example.  It is no longer limited to PS3 buyers.

It only about PS3 when the discussion is about PS3 gamers not needing backward compatibility because people don't want to play old games on their nextgen console.

[Dartful Dodger]

A problem I had with the wii sports games were that the people don't have legs or arms.

the game is fun to play, but the graphics, or lack of graphics take away from the games.

If you go to any game review site they score the games by game play graphics.  Some titles that are cross console score better because of the improved graphics.

If GTA was designed with Atari adventure style graphics, the game would be fun to play, but I wouldn't spend 60 bucks for it.

Actually I wouldn't pay 60 bucks for any game.  I'm will to pay 40 bucks for some games, but a 4 bit GTA isn't one of them.

[ahofle]

A problem I had with the wii sports games were that the people don't have legs or arms.

the game is fun to play, but the graphics, or lack of graphics take away from the games.

I'm starting to feel blessed that I don't let minor details like missing Mii body parts "take away" from any of the games I play.

[patrickl]

I wasn't to bothered about the simple cartoonlike graphics of Wii Sports either. The lack in sophistication of the games and the disappointment in the use of the Wiimote stopped me playing these games after the novelty wore off.

[ark_ader]

My friends have been seriously goating me to get a PS3.  They have sold their PCs and just play with the PS3.  I can see doing that if I wanted to have Linux on the PS3....

I looked at Sams Club, Walmart and the game shops and they have good deals on.  The biggest issue of buying one is the price.

$499 is too much to buy a console for when there is a handful of games for it.  The issue become more clouded, when the backwards compatibility has been removed on all the later units and all those games I bought for the PS2 and PS1 will need its own console sitting right next to it.

That is a bummer.  I cannot see myself buying a 2nd hand PS3 60GB for $349 for it to go tits up after 30 days and I'm out of pocket.

Bring the price down to $299 and give us backwards compatibility, and I'll buy one.  My guess that others would buy one too.

[versapak]

Bring the price down to $299 and give us backwards compatibility, and I'll buy one.  My guess that others would buy one too.

The bolded part is the only part that will make a difference on sales.


My guess at that price many others will buy one, and they may be a little bummed that there is no backward compatibility, but it will not be a major factor in the buying deceision.


Of course there are exceptions, so I don't need anyone in this thread to tell me about how important BC is to you. For starters having the current consoles isn't really much of a big deal to many of you in the first place, and secondly we are a minority in many areas of gaming on sites like these.

[shmokes]

Why do people insist on talking about graphics and gameplay as though they exist in vacuums?  You cannot, simply CAN NOT play Donkey Kong on a system that will only display text.  The gameplay of Super Mario Bros. cannot and could not take place on an Atari 2600.  You cannot hide in the shadows in Splinter Cell if your game console cannot visually depict shadows.

Graphics matter for the sake of eye candy.  They create more immersing worlds.  They affect suspension of disbelief.  To suggest otherwise is to suggest that you're as pleased with the special effects in Willow as you are with Lord of the Rings -- that the Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were no more satisfying than those in Land of the Lost. 

But they're a helluva a lot more than that too.  When individual trees are rendered, you get a golf game that PLAYS better than when they're just some two dimensional ghost trees that the ball will pass straight through.  A football game with three dimensional models that have actual arms and legs that obey the laws of physics plays better than one where the players are actually just rectangles with functionless arms that are painted there for your viewing pleasure. 

Even if graphics were nothing but eye candy they would be VERY important for the same reason special effects are important in movies.  But in actuality they are SO MUCH more than that.  The argument that graphics are unimportant or even not very important simply has no legs to stand on no matter how you want to look at it.

[ChadTower]

But they're a helluva a lot more than that too.  When individual trees are rendered, you get a golf game that PLAYS better than when they're just some two dimensional ghost trees that the ball will pass straight through.  A football game with three dimensional models that have actual arms and legs that obey the laws of physics plays better than one where the players are actually just rectangles with functionless arms that are painted there for your viewing pleasure. 

You're presuming to speak for everyone again.  I don't want a gaming experience that lifelike.  If I want golfing that realistic and immersive I'll go to a golf course.  If I want a perfect football experience I'll grab my sons and go outside.  I don't want nor do I need that experience from a game console.  I actually avoid games like that - they have no appeal to me.

[knave]

Graphics can be an important part of a game that already have a good playable concept. A fun game can be made more enjoyable by a certain level of graphical sophistication. It's realism that is not necessary.  The best games have graphics that fit the playstyle and enhance the experience.  Pac man is great for what it is, Better graphics would not improve it. Some games are more fun when you can distinguish details or when the graphics enable different features such as hit locations in a shooter.

In the end if a game has fun and engaging gameplay the graphics matter less, but they still must be up to supporting the gameplay.

[Dartful Dodger]

If I want a perfect football experience I'll grab my sons and go outside.

Playing against 5 year olds is a perfect football experience for someone with football skills of a 5 year old.

Better graphics = more of a challenge = better game play

Like shmokes said.  A game with 3d is more challenging than a 2d game.  A 3d game with realistic sun glares and rain, is more challenging than one without.

Better graphics result in more options in a game.

[AtomSmasher]

Better graphics = more of a challenge = better game play

Umm...what?

If you had just said better graphics = better game play, then I could of at least understood your point of view, but better graphics = more of a challenge, just doesn't hold true.

I recommend you download the game I Wanna Be The Guy just to see how challenging a game with nes style graphics can be.

[Dartful Dodger]

I recommend you download the game I Wanna Be The Guy just to see how challenging a game with nes style graphics can be.

...add targets that move on the Z axis. That would be even more challenging.

An even more challenging game would be a text based game where you have to guess a number between 0 and 1,000,000,000

That game could be even more challenging if there were a 1,000,000,000 boxes floating around a 3d environment and you had one chance to shoot the right one.  Add shadows and lighting effects...

[AtomSmasher]

I should of added that it doesn't even matter if better graphics does automatically mean more of a challenge (which is doesn't) because if you look at modern games you'll see that the skill level required to play them is usually a lot less than older games.  Game makers are trying to tell a story, so they want players to finish their games, back then they just wanted you to put more quarters in the slot.

[shmokes]

An even more challenging game would be a text based game where you have to guess a number between 0 and 1,000,000,000

---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- . . . I just laughed for like five minutes when I read that.

Chad . . . better graphics does not mean realism.  It means options.  World of Warcraft bears little resemblance to any world I've seen.  Psychonaughts takes place in the minds of the deranged.  And maybe you don't want a realistic football game, but NFL Blitz could not happen on an NES.  However ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that the NES could do can be done on modern consoles.  Better graphics may allow games to be utlra-realistic, but to focus on that is to miss the bigger picture.  Better graphics simply allow the developers to do more things.  Realism is simply one of a million of those things.  And, frankly, there are very few games out there that seriously strive to mimic the real world.

[ahofle]

Chad . . . better graphics does not mean realism.  It means options.  World of Warcraft bears little resemblance to any world I've seen.  Psychonaughts takes place in the minds of the deranged.  And maybe you don't want a realistic football game, but NFL Blitz could not happen on an NES.  However ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that the NES could do can be done on modern consoles.  Better graphics may allow games to be utlra-realistic, but to focus on that is to miss the bigger picture.  Better graphics simply allow the developers to do more things.  Realism is simply one of a million of those things. 

I think you are really reaching with this "better graphics = better gameplay" argument.  You are comparing an NES to a PS3, when the topic is really more of a comparison between the consoles of this generation (ie. missing Mii arms ruining the Wii Sports gameplay experience for Dartful Dodger  ).  The technologies that you mention have been around since the last generation of consoles.  You aren't really getting any more gameplay "options" from a PS3 due to its superior GPU over a Wii (I would even say you are getting fewer "options", but that's due to the archaic controller design and has nothing to do with graphics). 
As an example, consider Unreal Tournament 3 for the PC.  There is absolutely nothing in that game that wasn't a possible "option" in UT 2004, a game made 3-4 years earlier.  The graphical improvements are nothing but eye candy at this point.

[patrickl]

You aren't really getting any more gameplay "options" from a PS3 due to its superior GPU over a Wii

Yes you do. Look at the new GTA coming out. It will allow for different hit points on the body. The victim will for instance limp if hit in the leg. If you look at Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles on the Wii the zombies have one hit point. Hit just a mm away from the hit point and the victim doesn't even respond at all. Resident Evil had two hit points (head vs rest of zombie). Slightly better, but still ridiculous that you can kill someone/something by hitting it in the foot.

It's not just the GPU, but better overall power allows for better games.

[ahofle]

Look at the new GTA coming out. It will allow for different hit points on the body. The victim will for instance limp if hit in the leg. If you look at Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles on the Wii the zombies have one hit point. Hit just a mm away from the hit point and the victim doesn't even respond at all. Resident Evil had two hit points (head vs rest of zombie).

You sure that has anything to do with graphics?  Sounds more like the game was simply coded without separate hit zones.

It's not just the GPU, but better overall power allows for better games.

No argument there.  My only point was that things seem to be 'leveling off' in terms of GPU advancements yielding ground breaking gameplay options that were previously impossible.

[AtomSmasher]

You aren't really getting any more gameplay "options" from a PS3 due to its superior GPU over a Wii

Yes you do. Look at the new GTA coming out. It will allow for different hit points on the body. The victim will for instance limp if hit in the leg. If you look at Resident Evil Umbrella Chronicles on the Wii the zombies have one hit point. Hit just a mm away from the hit point and the victim doesn't even respond at all. Resident Evil had two hit points (head vs rest of zombie). Slightly better, but still ridiculous that you can kill someone/something by hitting it in the foot.

It's not just the GPU, but better overall power allows for better games.

You could also look at the video game Soldier of Fortune which came out 8 years ago and had 26 different parts of the body you could shoot and have different reactions to.  It's just a matter of what they want to put in the game, not a matter of superior technology since even the ps2 and dreamcast were capable of doing that.  (and just to be clear, I'm only talking about the multiple hitpoints, not gameplay in general)

[patrickl]

Games are a compromise of what they can do within the limited availability of GPU and CPU. If the GPU and CPU can handle "more" then the games will allow more possiblilties to built in together.

[somunny]

Could another price drop be a week away?

http://www.maxconsole.net/?mode=news&newsid=24454

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Several posters at SlickDeals.net are reporting that the PS3 may have yet another price drop towards the end of the month. Many are rumoring that a $299 PS3 will be announced on January 28. SlickDeals.net is a website dedicated to providing consumers with the latest prices in electronics, breaking the news of both of the previous PS3 price drops and the 360 price drop a few weeks early, along with the CheapAssGamer forums.

Though it does seem early for this to occur, Sony did recently announce that the price of manufacturing of the PS3 did drop from $800 per unit at the launch to $400 currently. This is mainly due to the success of Blu Ray, especially with Warner Bros. going Blu Ray exclusive earlier this month. Now there are also rumors that Paramount found a loophole in their HD DVD exclusivity contract and will be going Blu Ray as well - leaving Universal and Dreamworks as the only remaining HD DVD studios.

Well, looks like no dice on the price drop today.  I still think that it makes sense in the very near future, especially with the rumored 120 and 160gb versions on the way.  A $299 40GB unit would be excellent competition for the 360 "Arcade" SKU.

[SithMaster]

I recommend you download the game I Wanna Be The Guy just to see how challenging a game with nes style graphics can be.

...add targets that move on the Z axis. That would be even more challenging.

An even more challenging game would be a text based game where you have to guess a number between 0 and 1,000,000,000

That game could be even more challenging if there were a 1,000,000,000 boxes floating around a 3d environment and you had one chance to shoot the right one.  Add shadows and lighting effects...

so you would enjoy a game like that?  cause i wouldnt and neither would anyone else except someone who works for nasa or if you want to fail.

realism doesnt always make a game better.  would you rather be entertained or forced to do ridiculous tasks in game.  realism adds to immersion and can be used for gameplay elements.  like the hiding in shadows bit.

to be honest id prefer smarter AI in my fps games then shiny things, but thats just me.

[shmokes]

Um . . . I tend to not typically agree with Dartful on many things, but I can say with 100% confidence that he did not say anything remotely close to what you are suggesting.

[SithMaster]

Then what did he say?

[shmokes]

He said that 3D makes a game more challenging than 2D, everything else being equal.  I don't know that I necessarily think that's true.  Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but that's what he said.  He did not say that he would enjoy a 3D or a 2D version of the choose-the-correct-number-between-1-and-1,000,000,000 game, nor did he say that realism always makes a game better.  In fact, the only thing he said about realism as far as I can tell was that adding realistic sun glare to a racing game makes it more challenging than without.  I think it's reasonable to assume that he thinks the more realist "with lens-glare" version is superior to the less realistic "no lens-glare", but that hardly amounts to a wholesale claim that all games should be as realistic as possible. 

And, I know that this was ahofle, and not you, but he never said that the lack of legs and arms ruined Wii Sports.  He said Wii Sports is fun, but the graphics took away from the experience.  Those are two wildly different positions.

I'm just sayin' . . .

[SithMaster]

He said that 3D makes a game more challenging than 2D, everything else being equal.  I don't know that I necessarily think that's true.  Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but that's what he said.  He did not say that he would enjoy a 3D or a 2D version of the choose-the-correct-number-between-1-and-1,000,000,000 game, nor did he say that realism always makes a game better.  In fact, the only thing he said about realism as far as I can tell was that adding realistic sun glare to a racing game makes it more challenging than without.  I think it's reasonable to assume that he thinks the more realist "with lens-glare" version is superior to the less realistic "no lens-glare", but that hardly amounts to a wholesale claim that all games should be as realistic as possible. 

And, I know that this was ahofle, and not you, but he never said that the lack of legs and arms ruined Wii Sports.  He said Wii Sports is fun, but the graphics took away from the experience.  Those are two wildly different positions.

I'm just sayin' . . .

You win.  Assuming of course that is what he meant (which is probably correct).

Id lump graphical superiority into preferences of the gamer more then into whether or not it makes the game that much better.

anyway sorry shmokes if i sounded angry in my posts.

[shmokes]

No . . . not at all.  I'm just naturally argumentative.  As a rule of thumb, don't ever take my breaking into an argument as evidence that you have done something out of line. 

[Dartful Dodger]

I use to think I spoke over shmokes head, but he understood.

Take any game you like or think is challenging improve the graphics and the game will also improve, both game play and challenge.

On the other side of the coin if a game idea stinks better graphics won’t help.(unless those graphics involve nudity)

[patrickl]

Simulation games improve by making the graphics better. Maybe not so much the game play, but visuals do help in the enjoyment of the surroundings.

[ahofle]

On the other side of the coin if a game idea stinks better graphics won’t help.(unless those graphics involve nudity)

 

[shmokes]

If you're going to argue technical aspects on a console, can you at least not inflate the numbers there? The SNES does not have three times as much main RAM, it's 64K vs 128K.

I don't know how I completely missed this way back when.  I hate when I do that.  Anyway . . .

I didn't inflate anything.  SNES has 192K RAM, not 128.  192 is exactly 3 times 64.  The Genesis has 64K of shared RAM.  SNES has 128K of system RAM and 64K of VRAM, i.e., 192K.

What's going on with the Wii is a first.  Nintendo released a home console five years after the original Xbox that has not produced a single game in a year's time that could not be done on the Xbox.

Can you at least check your game list before making that comment? If you're talking strictly about graphics, OK, you have that.

At this point, all I'm saying, shmokes, is that if you want to argue the merits of any console, can you at least get the facts straight?

Well . . . of course I'm talking about graphics (and other processing intensive tasks like AI and physics).  I can be ridiculous at times, but not so ridiculous to suggest that games requiring IR pointer and/or accelerometer would work with a standard Xbox controller.  For this reason I figured that my meaning was pretty clear.  I'm talking about hardware capabilities.  The fact is, all you'd need for the Xbox to be capable of doing 95% of what we've seen on Wii is release an appropriate controller for it.  It won't happen, of course, but not because it couldn't be easily done.  There's just no market for such a device on the Xbox.