Sometimes there's nothing better than being wrong

[shmokes]

It looks like the new Star Wars Game, The Force Unleashed might actually be turning out to be pretty phenomenal.  It's still not the one-to-one lightsaber control fans are hoping for (and will probably never get on the Wii), but it still sounds like it's loads of fun, and at least more immersing than the waggle swordplay found in Twilight Princess.  I'm really surprised, cos the Wii version was farmed out to a third party who's made nothing but crap in the past.  Nevertheless, this looks like it's shaping up really well.

BTW, for anybody who doesn't get the title, it's a reference to previous cynical comments I've made about this game in the past.

[versapak]

I still have no doubts that this game will be another Star Wars game disappointment, regardless of the system.

[somunny]

BTW, for anybody who doesn't get the title, it's a reference to previous cynical comments I've made about this game in the past.

I had to check the thread just to see what you were wrong about this time! 

My feelings are with Versa on this one however, as bad SW games are more plentiful than good ones.  One SW game that got horrendous reviews that I loved (and still play) was Rebellion.  So there's hope either way.

[DaveMMR]

I'm with Versa too.  There were a lot of Star Wars games that are even critically "good" that I didn't particularly enjoy for a long period of time. 

Then again, if it's changing your opinion of the Wii, methinks I should look into it...

[patrickl]

Looks like fun.

[shmokes]

The Wii is good for what it's good for.  Trauma Center is ---smurfing--- awesome, and it couldn't be done on another system.  And I've had lots of fun with Wii Sports.  It's just not very good at certain things that it should be good at (motion control) and has ---smurfy--- graphics, sound and processing for things like AI and physics, especially considering it's high price tag (i.e., only $20 less than an Xbox 360, which is probably five or ten times as powerful).

And maybe this game will turn out like ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- -- god knows I expected it to.  But this is certainly an indication to the contrary. 

No matter what my feelings about the Wii are, though, certainly I don't want anything but wonderful games to come out for it.  It is, after all, the only current gen system that I own, and I have virtually no prospect of owning another system in the near future.

[patrickl]

Well at least the controls of this game look like they will be fun. Finally something where you actually weild a sword. Personally I also enjoy throwing stuff around with telekinetic powers (in Elebits and Destroy all Humans). But yeah, if it's only nice controls then it will not have much lasting appeal.

[DaveMMR]

...especially considering it's high price tag (i.e., only $20 less than an Xbox 360, which is probably five or ten times as powerful).

Apples to oranges.  You're comparing the pricing of a complete Wii package (admittedly, only a system and a game) to the bare-bones version of the Xbox 360 that doesn't come with a hard-drive (a requirement for many games and features).  Also factor in that the Wii sells at a profit while the XBox 360 sells at a loss, and you'll see that the hardware difference is much more than just "$20". 

[shmokes]

Nonsense.  The Wii also ships without a hard drive, so adding one to the Xbox wouldn't cost a consumer any more than adding one to the Wii (though they'd benefit from the addition a helluva lot more on the Xbox).  There are actually VERY few Xbox 360 games that require a hard drive.  And that Xbox 360 sells at a loss (it hasn't been selling at a loss for a long time, btw) is irrelevant to the consumer.  Actually, it's not irrelevant at all -- it's an enormous bonus to the consumer.  That the company is subsidizing the cost of expensive hardware makes the hardware a better value, not a worse value.  You're right that the hardware difference is more than $20.  The practical effect of that is, "Wow . . . for only $20 more, I get $100 worth of hardware."  How, again, does that make the Wii a better value?

[versapak]

Nonsense.  The Wii also ships without a hard drive, so adding one to the Xbox wouldn't cost a consumer any more than adding one to the Wii (though they'd benefit from the addition a helluva lot more on the Xbox).  There are actually VERY few Xbox 360 games that require a hard drive.  And that Xbox 360 sells at a loss (it hasn't been selling at a loss for a long time, btw) is irrelevant to the consumer.  Actually, it's not irrelevant at all -- it's an enormous bonus to the consumer.  That the company is subsidizing the cost of expensive hardware makes the hardware a better value, not a worse value.  You're right that the hardware difference is more than $20.  The practical effect of that is, "Wow . . . for only $20 more, I get $100 worth of hardware."  How, again, does that make the Wii a better value?

Also, the cheapest Xbox 360 does come with 5 games:

PAC-MAN Championship Edition
UNO
Luxor 2
Boom Boom Rocket
Feeding Frenzy


Yes, they are Live arcade games, but I personally find them to be on par (as far as inclusion value) with a game like Wii sports.

[DaveMMR]

Nonsense.  The Wii also ships without a hard drive, so adding one to the Xbox wouldn't cost a consumer any more than adding one to the Wii (though they'd benefit from the addition a helluva lot more on the Xbox).  There are actually VERY few Xbox 360 games that require a hard drive.  And that Xbox 360 sells at a loss (it hasn't been selling at a loss for a long time, btw) is irrelevant to the consumer.  Actually, it's not irrelevant at all -- it's an enormous bonus to the consumer.  That the company is subsidizing the cost of expensive hardware makes the hardware a better value, not a worse value.  You're right that the hardware difference is more than $20.  The practical effect of that is, "Wow . . . for only $20 more, I get $100 worth of hardware."  How, again, does that make the Wii a better value?

It adds ~$80 to the pricetage of the barebones system and while not many games require it, you're going to miss out on certain features (backwards compatability and certain XBox Live Features*).  But yeah, you don't need it, just want it.

And I'm not saying one's a better value or a worse value.  It's just an unrealistic comparison, is all.   Do you thing the average consumer who's eying the Wii is going to compare it alongside an Xbox 360 and calculate the hardware-to-cost ratio?  No.  They're buying a Wii to play Nintendo games.  They simply would not spend an extra $20 for better looking games they really didn't want to play in the first place.

Now if you were to compare the price/hardware of Xbox and PS3, that'd be more accurate.  They're after the same demographic and have more comparable libraries and specs.

[versapak]

Nonsense.  The Wii also ships without a hard drive, so adding one to the Xbox wouldn't cost a consumer any more than adding one to the Wii (though they'd benefit from the addition a helluva lot more on the Xbox).  There are actually VERY few Xbox 360 games that require a hard drive.  And that Xbox 360 sells at a loss (it hasn't been selling at a loss for a long time, btw) is irrelevant to the consumer.  Actually, it's not irrelevant at all -- it's an enormous bonus to the consumer.  That the company is subsidizing the cost of expensive hardware makes the hardware a better value, not a worse value.  You're right that the hardware difference is more than $20.  The practical effect of that is, "Wow . . . for only $20 more, I get $100 worth of hardware."  How, again, does that make the Wii a better value?

It adds ~$80 to the pricetage of the barebones system and while not many games require it, you're going to miss out on certain features (backwards compatability and certain XBox Live Features*).  But yeah, you don't need it, just want it.

And I'm not saying one's a better value or a worse value.  It's just an unrealistic comparison, is all.   Do you thing the average consumer who's eying the Wii is going to compare it alongside an Xbox 360 and calculate the hardware-to-cost ratio?  No.  They're buying a Wii to play Nintendo games.  They simply would not spend an extra $20 for better looking games they really didn't want to play in the first place.

Now if you were to compare the price/hardware of Xbox and PS3, that'd be more accurate.  They're after the same demographic and have more comparable libraries and specs.

There is only one game that does require it, and that is a MMORPG.

You don't miss out on any Live features (unless you are talking about tv purchases & movie rentals, but I don't consider those Live features at all).


It is a very realistic comparison between game consoles.

[DaveMMR]

There is only one game that does require it, and that is a MMORPG.

I don't know anything about Live features (except what I glanced for quick research) but I'm under the impression you need it for at backwards compatibility (the original Xbox came with a hard drive).    And how many memory cards do you have to buy for all the dowloads, extra content, etc.?  Again, I said you may not need it but you'll eventually want it.

It is a very realistic comparison between game consoles.

So you're saying the target audiences for the Wii and the Xbox 360 are identical?   

I understand the point shmokes was making about the price-to-hardware ratio and that the Wii seems expensive compared to the lower-ended Xbox 360.  But I'm trying to explain that it's not so cut-and-dry.  Nintendo tries to make a profit because, I dunno, they want to stay in business.  And Microsoft can afford to sell at a lose because they have pretty deep pockets (though as of last year, their gaming division was still operating in the red).   So while it seems like a paltry $20, it's probably a lot closer to $100 or more in terms of actual cost (just a really rough guess, mind you). 

But again, it's all moot.  If you want to buy an Xbox 360 you'll buy an Xbox 360.  Likewise with a Wii.   The $20 won't make a difference.  No one but the hardcore gamers is having tinkling contests with hardware specs anymore.   

[shmokes]

I just said it has a comparably high price tag.  It does.  There's no way around that.  Are people going to buy it for its novelty and for Nintendo games?  Uh . . . I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes.  I just said that it's comparatively expensive, and you took issue with that.  It is comparatively expensive.  Microsoft is making a profit on hardware now.  That means that Nintendo is making a HUGE profit on hardware -- cos they're selling at an enormous mark-up, hence the high price.

It's a perfectly apt comparison between the two systems.  Both function perfectly well without a hard drive.  Neither come with a hard drive.  Both come with flash memory for storing games and ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- that you can download from the internet (the Xbox only comes with a 256 MB memory, while the Wii comes with 512 MB).  So, what's the problem with the comparison?

What's really funny, if we want to start talking about add-ons, how about one that's fair (unlike knocking the lack of a hard drive on the 360, when the Wii doesn't have one either).  A controller for the 360 Costs $33 at Amazon.  A Wii Remote/Nunchuck combo costs $60.  So a 360 with two controllers actually costs less than a Wii with two controllers.  All it takes is a single controller purchase, something that virtually every owner is going to make, to make the Wii more expensive than the 360 -- a system that is probably 5-10 more powerful and costs significantly more to manufacture.  And still, Microsoft is making a profit on hardware sales.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  The Wii is an expensive machine.  A $10 hamburger isn't cheap just because it costs less than a $12 steak.

[DaveMMR]

I just said it has a comparably high price tag.  It does.  There's no way around that.  Are people going to buy it for its novelty and for Nintendo games?  Uh . . . I'm pretty sure the answer to that is yes.  I just said that it's comparatively expensive, and you took issue with that.  It is comparatively expensive.  Microsoft is making a profit on hardware now.  That means that Nintendo is making a HUGE profit on hardware -- cos they're selling at an enormous mark-up, hence the high price.

Fair enough.   But you can also turn around and call it comparatively cheap by association with recent console launch history.   From the original Playstation up until recently, the magic price point was $299 (the Xbox 360 Core System included).  Meanwhile, the Wii came out of the gate $50 cheaper than the then one-year-old 360*.  Microsoft's price reduction to $279 (and repackaging/renaming of the Core system to the Arcade) took place a year later.

*In all fairness, at $199, the Gamecube came out $100 cheaper than its contemporaries.

And if you wanted to only compare "graphical power-to-cost" ratios to show that the Wii is comparatively expensive, you'd be leaving out the whole "motion control" aspect of the equation.  Like it or hate it for gaming, it does add a little more value to the package as a whole (especially considering it opens up new audiences to gaming consoles). 

But, still, you are right about Nintendo making a huge profit on Wiis (one web article estimates the cost to be only $158 per unit).  As of last year, Microsoft makes from $0 to $78 on new Xbox 360 sales.  But which company has deeper pockets and another product line to offset any losses (e.g. The Red Ring of Death debacle) in the gaming department?

That's why I call the cost comparison inaccurate.  Yes, Xbox 360 is sold inexpensively to the consumer but that doesn't make the Wii expensive by association just because both happen to be found the same aisle. 

[AtomSmasher]

I agree that the Wii has a comparatively high retail price (we're talking now, because it was a good price at it's launch) and that Nintendo could lower the price of the console and still make a profit on each sale, but with Wii's still selling out, theres no reason for them to lower the price.  Even with 360 and PS3 dropping their prices, Nintendo wouldn't be too bright to drop theirs until supply starts exceding demand.

[shmokes]

Actually, it's that magically low price at launch that disappoints me about the Wii.  Historically, it's actually not a low price in terms of value to the consumer, because Nintendo decided not to lose any money on the system.  Nintendo subsidized the cost of both the N64 and Gamecubes, so in both of the previous generations, the consumer got more hardware than he was paying for.  But, whatever.  I don't care about that . . . that's just to clarify the situation.  What disappoints me the most is that I would have LOVED to pay $299 for the Wii, if it meant that the Wii was exactly the same system, but with the horsepower of the Xbox 360.  Considering that the Xbox 360 core was $299 when the Wii launched, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that Nintendo could have done this.  Think of what that would have done for them.  They'd have everything they have now, but the capability to do everything the Xbox 360 can do.  And they'd still have been very competitive on price.  And, considering their supply situation, a $299 pricepoint would probably not have significantly impacted sales, if at all.

Here I am as a Wii owner, and I can't play any cross-platform games.  We don't get Grand Theft Auto IV on Wii.  Splinter Cell is horribly bad on Wii.  Resident Evil 5 will never show up on Wii.  Metal Gear?  Never on Wii.  Bioshock, , Orange Box, Burnout Paradise, Gears of War, COD 4, Dead Rising, Crysis, Oblivion, Skate, Assassin's Creed.  These are (or will be soon) cross-platform games.  Agnostic.  The publishers want total market penetration -- maximized exposure.  But they're hands are tied.  The Wii simply cannot run them.  I think Nintendo games are as great as the next person, but that doesn't mean I want to play them to the exclusion of all others.  I'd have laid down $50 in a heartbeat for a Wii that could also go toe-to-toe with its competitors.  Graphics, physics, sound and AI aren't everything.  But they aren't nothing.  And god knows that the lack of Grand Theft Auto IV isn't nothing.

[DaveMMR]

Considering that the Xbox 360 core was $299 when the Wii launched, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that Nintendo could have done this.  Think of what that would have done for them.  They'd have everything they have now, but the capability to do everything the Xbox 360 can do.  And they'd still have been very competitive on price.  And, considering their supply situation, a $299 pricepoint would probably not have significantly impacted sales, if at all.

It would seem like a reasonable strategy except for the fact many consumers (the more casual, impulse ones) are notorious for seeing only a bottom line.  "I want a game system.  This one is the cheapest and it comes with an interesting little game and novel controls.   Sold!"  Nintendo is not banking on laymen understanding the hardware specs between their system and the competitors.  Selling for $50 (or even $20) less nowadays makes a big dent.

Here I am as a Wii owner, and I can't play any cross-platform games.  We don't get Grand Theft Auto IV on Wii.  Splinter Cell is horribly bad on Wii.  Resident Evil 5 will never show up on Wii.  Metal Gear?  Never on Wii.  Bioshock, , Orange Box, Burnout Paradise, Gears of War, COD 4, Dead Rising, Crysis, Oblivion, Skate, Assassin's Creed.  These are (or will be soon) cross-platform games.  Agnostic.  The publishers want total market penetration -- maximized exposure.  But they're hands are tied.  The Wii simply cannot run them.  I think Nintendo games are as great as the next person, but that doesn't mean I want to play them to the exclusion of all others.  I'd have laid down $50 in a heartbeat for a Wii that could also go toe-to-toe with its competitors.  Graphics, physics, sound and AI aren't everything.  But they aren't nothing.  And god knows that the lack of Grand Theft Auto IV isn't nothing.

I don't think the lack of hardware "oomph" is the only thing holding back GTA IV and it's ilk from the Wii?  Whether or not they admit it, Nintendo is still the puppy dogs with the "family-friendly" face on and while they can have the occasional M-Rated title, it's content is usually nothing as "envelope-pushing" as GTA IV.   

Secondly, in the past, many publishers didn't want to spend the time and money reworking titles to work on N64 (especially with expensive cartridges) and Gamecube considering their third place position.  Wii, however, is currently enjoying a first place in the current console wars and if there's money to be made, publishers will find a way to work within the Wii's limits (see: Rock Band).  Will it be satisfactory?  Depends.

Finally, I don't know if you'd really want to be a gamer in a world where the systems had the same exact library.  They're be no reason for three competitors (or two) and without competition, the consumer loses.    But right now, with prices dropping, it's not unreasonable to get a Wii and an XBox 360 in the near future (or vice versa).   Being a gamer ain't cheap.   

[shmokes]

. . . while they can have the occasional M-Rated title, it's content is usually nothing as "envelope-pushing" as GTA IV.   

Oh, I don't know.  Rockstar gave the Wii Manhunt 2, which was outright banned in the UK, and effectively banned in the US (AO rating) until Rockstar censored it a bit so it could scrape by with an M rating.  I'm sure that if Rockstar would make a GTA for Wii, Nintendo would allow it.  In fact, Reggie Fils Aime has said that not only would they allow it, but that they're campaigning for it.

[DaveMMR]

. . . while they can have the occasional M-Rated title, it's content is usually nothing as "envelope-pushing" as GTA IV.   

Oh, I don't know.  Rockstar gave the Wii Manhunt 2, which was outright banned in the UK, and effectively banned in the US (AO rating) until Rockstar censored it a bit so it could scrape by with an M rating.  I'm sure that if Rockstar would make a GTA for Wii, Nintendo would allow it.  In fact, Reggie Fils Aime has said that not only would they allow it, but that they're campaigning for it.

I stand corrected.  I was completely wrong on that point.  My only defense is that I completely avoided the whole Manhunt 2 controversy coverage.  And yeah, GTA IV on the Wii would be sweet (though I'd imagine I would just rather get a 360 and that respective version simply for the promised DLC). 

[shmokes]

I completely avoided the whole Manhunt 2 controversy coverage. 

I can hardly blame you.  I haven't played it, but it looks utterly forgettable.  The sad thing is I wouldn't be surprised if it was meant as a test piece to see if there was a viable market on the Wii for M games.  So they put a piece of crap game out there, and it hardly sells, and Take-Two probably has some chowder head that will now refuse to green-light a GTA for the Wii, based on poor manhunt sales.  Rather than chalking up the dismal sales to the dismal quality of the game, they'll just assume that it would have sold well but for the mature content.

I don't know . . . maybe I'm just overly cynical.  I suppose they have Bully out for the Wii too, so hopefully it's selling well; but on the other hand, that one too very likely isn't selling all that well considering that loads of PS2 owners already played it, and Wii owners who also have an Xbox 360 would rather get that version.

[patrickl]

"Driver Parallel Lines" on the Wii is very much like GTA (more like GTA than the original Driver game). No More Heroes is the mosty bloody game I've ever played myself.