The Nintendo Wii will only have a lifespan of 1 year [Archive]

mac000

Oct 20, 2006, 10:36 AM

Winstonp

Oct 20, 2006, 10:38 AM

please rename your post. It's clearly a lame attempt to get people to read this nonsense.

XNine

Oct 20, 2006, 10:43 AM

It appears a company Fusion is making technology that is a whole lot better than the technology Nintendo is using in their upcoming console Wii.

Although the concept of Fusion is similar to the Wii-mote the technology inside is very different indeed: rather than using infra-red sensors, which are only accurate when the transmitter points in the direction of the receiver, the Fusion uses cutting-edge ultrasonic technology, combined with a tilt sensor in the handle, to provide accurate 3D tracking no matter where the wand is positioned -IGN

http://www.nintendorevolution.ca/10202006/07/nintendo_wii_controller_clone_to_ps3_xbox_360

1. Will the Wii have the same "era" as the Dreamcast?

2. Why couldn't nintendo patent their idea somehow to prevent this from happening? Anyone would rather play a xbox360/ps3 with added bonus of the Wii remote.

3. We watch and see if the Wii will take off like the DS, if it does - there is a good chance the two big player Sony and Microsoft will jump on this technology and steal Nintendo thunder leaving them behind again.

4. I'm sure nintendo knows that this was/is going to happen, they MUST have something else very unique up their sleeve to set them over the top, no?

1. Most likely
2. Because the patent only covered the technology that was used in the Wii's remote, and not all other frequency response technologies.
3. Again, most likely. However, if you look at additional controllers, such as guns, cameras, wheels, flight sticks, etc. They have a limited life on any console. Most people don't buy these items because it comes down to that less than 10 titles will ever support them.
4. Probably not. Nintendo is no longer the mega-giant that they once were. While it's true they still sell very well, a lot of people have turned their backs on them, both publishers and customers, because of various reasons. Nintendo is happy where they're at. If they weren't, they would have completely rebuilt the Wii from the ground up and actually included things that they promised at one time.

mac000

Oct 20, 2006, 10:47 AM

1. Most likely
2. Because the patent only covered the technology that was used in the Wii's remote, and not all other frequency response technologies.
3. Again, most likely. However, if you look at additional controllers, such as guns, cameras, wheels, flight sticks, etc. They have a limited life on any console. Most people don't buy these items because it comes down to that less than 10 titles will ever support them.
4. Probably not. Nintendo is no longer the mega-giant that they once were. While it's true they still sell very well, a lot of people have turned their backs on them, both publishers and customers, because of various reasons. Nintendo is happy where they're at. If they weren't, they would have completely rebuilt the Wii from the ground up and actually included things that they promised at one time.

what do you mean by "...actually included things that they promised at one time"

srobert

Oct 20, 2006, 11:03 AM

Interesting, but I have yet to see an optional third party peripheral get widespread support from game developers. Most often, each attempt only end up being supported by 1-3 games. Only time will tell.

I'm curious to see the final version. The bundled technology in the initial prototype often takes a dive when times come to mass market it for a decent price.

P.S.: I agree that the thread title is a little misleading and inflamatory ;)

Mavimao

Oct 20, 2006, 11:11 AM

The truth of the matter is, unlike the Wii where the motion sensing it included and is part of the experience. This is nothing more than a peripheral that will unlikely see any widespread support. The generation after is a whole other ball game, but for right now the Wii is here to stay.

lmalave

Oct 20, 2006, 11:16 AM

What's to say Nintendo won't license this technology? The advantage of this technology is *how* it detects tilt, position, etc. Why couldn't a Wii controller be based on this technology? It would just have to send the information on tilt, position, etc. to the Wii in the protocol that Wii understands..

I, for one, will definitely be a Wii early adopter. This article does nothing to dissuade me.

XNine

Oct 20, 2006, 12:06 PM

what do you mean by "...actually included things that they promised at one time"

DVD playback, region-free games, wifi, HD....

monkeydo_jb

Oct 20, 2006, 12:14 PM

DVD playback, region-free games, wifi, HD....

The Wii has WiFi.

DavidLeblond

Oct 20, 2006, 12:15 PM

DVD playback, region-free games, wifi, HD....

Yeah, curses to Nintendo for taking out the wifi feature!

Oh, wait....

:rolleyes:

jdechko

Oct 20, 2006, 12:20 PM

I don't think HD was ever touted as a feature, and region-free was a slip up by one of the people. There never was an official announcement that it was going to be region-free that I recall, it was a slip from one of the execs.

I'll give you the DVD playback.

aidanpendragon

Oct 20, 2006, 12:22 PM

1. If you think sun/light interference is bad, how could a sonic/ultrasonic system be disrupted? By playing the game too loudly?

2. Nintendo has a shipping product; these guys have demo units very far from that (see point #1).

Most importantly,

3. Nintendo has a one-size-fits all controller that can be used in pretty much any game - the launch titles include swords, sports, guns, and driving. Have you seen a picture of this supposed alternative? (http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/20/new-motion-sensing-tech-is-wii-beater/) Yeah, I really want 6 or 7 different controllers depending on the type of game I play.

...Further thoughts on seeing more screenshots and the tennis demo video: (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=147911)

- The racket looks really big - so big that I'd rather just play tennis. Compare that to Wii controller.

- The interface itself is maybe twice as big as a Wii.

- At the beginning of the tennis video, despite the vaunted (in print) responsiveness, the game seems noticeably laggy to controller inputs.

- In the middle of the game, responsiveness is better, but it doesn't look like you actually see the racket onscreen - just a Batman-style "crash!" when you hit the ball. Without a visual one-to-one correspondance, this is nothing more than a button press triggered by swinging (which Nintendo gets roasted for, but with more to literally show for it).

After viewing this, I call crap. Don't see how this justifies the glowing article or apocalyptic headlines of Nintendo's demise.

monkeydo_jb

Oct 20, 2006, 12:24 PM

This doesn't mean Nintendo can't eventually adopt this technology and code games to support both. Does it?

Who plays from behind their couch, anyway? Well besides the people in the Wii promo videos...

2nyRiggz

Oct 20, 2006, 12:25 PM

2. Why couldn't nintendo patent their idea somehow to prevent this from happening? Anyone would rather play a xbox360/ps3 with added bonus of the Wii remote.

I don't think it was theres to begin with to patent the sensing thing. Other companies like MS had done something and Sony(don't kill me) was working on the sixaxis for a while so..

I also agree about people not wanting to play video games in the kitchen whiles the tv is in the living room.

Bless

BlizzardBomb

Oct 20, 2006, 12:31 PM

HD....

When was HD ever promised?

Krevnik

Oct 20, 2006, 12:32 PM

It appears a company Fusion is making technology that is a whole lot better than the technology Nintendo is using in their upcoming console Wii.

I snipped the rest, but let me just say one thing: It isn't better, just different.

Ultrasonic positioning is NOT a new concept. And I doubt 'cutting-edge' means anything important in this case. Ultrasonic is still line-of-sight transmission. Anything and their dog can easily block or reflect an ultrasonic signal, tainting the readings.

Most likely, they found a way to minimize the noise from reflection, although blocked signals are still likely to pose some issues depending on the frequency. Most ultra-sonic systems to date require transmitters or receivers in 4 locations to reduce error in readings, and are more expensive to produce.

We could produce 2 sensor bars for the cost of /one/ ultra-sonic transciever, and this would require at least 3 transcievers, one even more specialized than the other two.

insaner

Oct 20, 2006, 12:36 PM

1. Will the Wii have the same "era" as the Dreamcast?

Highly doubtful that Nintendo would suffer the same fate. Nintendo is a very profitable company, every generation they have profited more than the competition even with the Gamecube (although it came in #3) and they have in the range of $8 billion USD in reserves that they can use up for another generation if they wanted too.

Dreamcast had too many issues such as a limited $100 mil budget and no EA support (Wii obviously has EA's support). Third-Parties including Ubisoft are flocking to the Wii, realizing its potential.

The worst Wii will do is come in third place with more market share than Gamecube and that is because Nintendo fans will continue to play online games like Super Smash Bros. (one of the most anticipated titles in the next-gen) and support the popular franchises. Nintendo in many ways is the Apple of the gaming industry, period.

2. Why couldn't nintendo patent their idea somehow to prevent this from happening? Anyone would rather play a xbox360/ps3 with added bonus of the Wii remote.

I'm sure they have patented it obviously, but the issue is not that someone is copying it but the fact that the Wii's controller is the primary controller of the console. This wand device from In2Games is a third-party controller, sure it offers opportunities for ports but gamers WILL have to buy the controller first in order to enjoy a Wii port. The real question is will third-parties really support the concept for other platforms?

3. We watch and see if the Wii will take off like the DS, if it does - there is a good chance the two big player Sony and Microsoft will jump on this technology and steal Nintendo thunder leaving them behind again.

That is what would happen in the next-next generation, Sony and Microsoft have there primary controllers as of now and that isn't going to change. If they wanted too, they could have stole its thunder already but it's too late for that. Nintendo is hoping to recapture market share so that in the next-next generation they can compete in the HD/Graphics area.

4. I'm sure nintendo knows that this was/is going to happen, they MUST have something else very unique up their sleeve to set them over the top, no?

Again it's all about primary and third-party controllers...besides Nintendo said they wanted this concept to be the standard, so here are the third-parties!

white89gt

Oct 20, 2006, 02:04 PM

In response to the original poster's comments about his/her expected short lifespan of the Wii all I've got to say is two words.........virtual console. If all the Wii was ever going to be was a machine to run the virtual console feature, I'd still buy it....twice! Just to be able to play all the old games again without having to have each system and the cartridge or CD is worth it without all the other stuff that the Wii is going to be able to do. Now top that off with some of the most inventive and creative thinking in recent gaming history and you've got yourself the proverbial blockbuster.

Furthermore, Microsoft and Sony will try to "steal Nintendo's thunder" with a "wiimote" of their own, yet the 360 is only a year old and the ps3 isn't even out yet. They've already gotten their first-party and the early 3rd party game suppliers locked into a traditional style controller, and their ability to transition to a newer style controller is inhibited by it. It'll be their next-gen systems that will make primary use of any wiimote copy, not their present offerings. By then Nintendo will have laid claim to the throne and everyone else will be copycats just catching up while Nintendo is releasing their next big step in gaming. The short of it is, love 'em or hate 'em, they beat everyone else to the punch.

Mavimao

Oct 20, 2006, 02:06 PM

grammar lesson:

too = 'as well', 'also'

to = preposition, or first part of the infinitive form of a verb: They went to the lake to swim. Or in insaner's case, "they have in the range of $8 billion USD in reserves that they can use up for another generation if they wanted to." or "If they wanted to"

two = number 2

Dagless

Oct 20, 2006, 02:15 PM

1 min left. this is BS. no Zelda or good games for it? looks like that thing is the DC. better tech and worst games

jlcharles

Oct 20, 2006, 02:22 PM

The Nintendo Power Glove used ultra-sonic positioning sensors. They've already used that technology before (15-20 years ago so it isn't exactly new or cutting edge) and decided on something different. I guess they must have had a reason not to use the same positioning technology from experience.

thechris69

Oct 20, 2006, 02:56 PM

this is biased nonsence... the wii is going to kill... a large majority of people who have benn polled for what next gen system theyre going to buy, it has been the wii

plinkoman

Oct 20, 2006, 02:59 PM

1. Will the Wii have the same "era" as the Dreamcast?

2. Why couldn't nintendo patent their idea somehow to prevent this from happening? Anyone would rather play a xbox360/ps3 with added bonus of the Wii remote.

3. We watch and see if the Wii will take off like the DS, if it does - there is a good chance the two big player Sony and Microsoft will jump on this technology and steal Nintendo thunder leaving them behind again.

4. I'm sure nintendo knows that this was/is going to happen, they MUST have something else very unique up their sleeve to set them over the top, no?

1. obviously, unless anyone here has a time machine; none of us can say for certain; but given the wiis momentum right now, I would say that is an extremely unlikely outcome.

2. if this is a different method of motion sensing, then it doesn't fall under nintendos patent. "Anyone would rather play a xbox360/ps3 with added bonus of the Wii remote." not true in the least bit. the Wii will have the controller for all games; the virtual console, the price, the nindendo exclusives (zelda, metroid etc...), and if this forum is any indication; a boatload of fanboys. a wiimote style controller for 360/PS3 would certainly hurt sales of wiis, but people who will buy a wii wont immediately jump ship the second sony or microsoft get there hands on something similar.

3. there is a good chance that the wii will take off like the ds, and there is an equally good chance that sony and microsoft will do something to try and compete with the motion sensing controller. (heck, sony already has) how much that would hurt wii sales remains to be seen.

4. I think at this point, the secrets are done. we basically know what needs to be known about the wii now, and we can just wait and see what happens.

If they weren't, they would have completely rebuilt the Wii from the ground up and actually included things that they promised at one time.

Ok, this coming from someone who is a sony fanboy(for the most part)? :rolleyes:

DVD playback, region-free games, wifi, HD....

ok, do you want to tell me when those things were "promised"? aside of course, from the wifi, which the wii DOES have.

saying they may include dvd playback does not constitute a promise, and one executive making an almost instantly corrected false statement regarding region encoding does not constitute going back on a promise either.

XNine

Oct 20, 2006, 03:09 PM

Ok, this coming from someone who is a sony fanboy(for the most part)? :rolleyes:

This coming from someone who obviously isn't involved enough in these forums to know just how much bashing of every console I've done. 360, PS3, Wii, doesn't matter, I point out the BS when it comes. So you can take that little allegation of yours and stick it where it belongs.

Why do you think the Wii is based on the same tech the GC was? Because Nintendo didn't want to push out a 4-600 dollar console. It's years old technology that those who already own a GC have. Hell, even raggedJimmi points this out and is the main reason he's not buying one now. The only additions to this console are backward compatibility and a new remote. Hardly seems fair to those who want the console, doesn't it? But Nintendo doesn't care, their happy with where they are (which is making profits on the units and not losses, like MS or Sony) which is why the Wii is what it is and nothing more.

So the Wii has wifi. Big deal, my mistake. Where's the DVD playback? something that would have cost them nearly nothing to implement. It's not there. HD is not there. Where's the region-free game play? The more you put into a console the more the end user gets out of it. Not everyone wants or has room for 3 consoles and a DVD player.

calyxman

Oct 20, 2006, 03:13 PM

gammar lesson:

too = 'as well', 'also'

to = preposition, or first part of the infinitive form of a verb: They went to the lake to swim. Or in insaner's case, "they have in the range of $8 billion USD in reserves that they can use up for another generation if they wanted to." or "If they wanted to"

two = number 2

You have my vote for the best post in this thread.

By the way, isn't it grammatically improper to end a sentence with the word "to?" In other words, don't say, "who do we deliver the flower to?", but rather, "To whom do we deliver this flower?"

atszyman

Oct 20, 2006, 03:16 PM

...Not everyone wants or has room for 3 consoles and a DVD player.

Just to point out, if you have 3 consoles, most likely the other two (assuming PS and Xbox), are DVD players so why would you need the third to be one as well?

The only way this argument holds is if you don't have room for a Wii and a DVD player. The Wii is pretty small and they make some pretty small/cheap standalone DVD players so you should be able to fit both in the slot for what would normally be a single AV component for about $30-50 more than just the Wii itself.

bobber205

Oct 20, 2006, 03:22 PM

This just shows how plain awesome the Wii is. People are already trying to copy off of it. (the first being Sony).

MacRumorUser

Oct 20, 2006, 03:32 PM

gammar lesson:

sorry couldnt resist, just think your post is ironic when you start it with a gammar lesson ;)

:D :D

Mavimao

Oct 20, 2006, 03:45 PM

sorry couldnt resist, just think your post is ironic when you start it with a gammar lesson ;)

:D :D
Ach ! I know! I spotted that and as I went to log in to edit it, I saw your post...too late.

Oh and it's time for another GRAMMAR lesson

They're = they are (contraction)

Their = possesive form of them (my is to I as their is to them)

There = indicates a place (over there, man, not here)

So, Onizuka, it's not But Nintendo doesn't care, their happy with where they are

but rather

But Nintendo doesn't care, they're happy with where they are

Jovian9

Oct 20, 2006, 03:50 PM

The Wii will not go the way of the DC. Nintendo has lots of money in reserves and is making lots of money off of their handhelds. Plus when I go buy my Wii Nintendo will actually make a profit from my purchase as well as the games I buy. Microsoft lost money when I bought a 360 and Sony will be losing money as well when people buy the PS3 (with it's decade old style controller).

My opinion on these 3 systems:

1. Nintendo Wii; True it will not be as powerful but it will be alot cheaper and fun. I know of 6 different people besides myself that will be buying one hopefully before Christmas (4 friends and 2 sets of nephews) b/c of price, b/c of backwards compatibility/legacy games, and b/c of the Wii-mote. Who cares about a DVD player in a game machine that's not either upscaling or allowing one to play HD-DVD/Blu-Ray discs. My $60 RCA dvd player outputs DVD's with a better signal via component cables to my 53" HDTV than my Xbox 360 does. No component cable with this is not ideal, but then again this is not HD. The design is AWESOME! I am glad I will not have to use an entire shelf for this system. 20 years of Nintendo games to store in this is hands down FANTASTIC! To me there were GameCube games that looked great on my 53" HDTV and I did not buy a component cable for the GC. I'm sure I will be happy with graphics.

2. Xbox 360; the premium bundle is great, though I wish it had come with a wi-fi built in. Games do look good on it. Xbox Live will not be surpassed by Sony or Nintendo. The Marketplace and Arcade are outstanding, but the Arcade could use more frequent game additions. There are finally a good amount of games that I'm interested in coming out for it. The controller is definitely better than the Xbox and I almost like it as much as the GameCube controller. The design is slick and it looks nice with all my other electronics in my entertainment center. NOISY - way too loud though. It would have been nice if they had included the HD-DVD player in it but I'd rather buy that when I need it rather than pay an extra $200 for the game system with it built-in.

3. Sony PS3; the positives are the built-in blu-ray player, built in wi-fi, and I'm sure the graphics will look equal to the 360. But $600 for a system being advertised as TRUE HD and you do not even get the HDMI cable with it. That's a joke. The controller design is a decade old (no matter what additions they've made to it). Think back on your life a decade ago and realize how much has changed :) Clinton is no longer in office, internet is not as slow, Steve Jobs is no longer "ousted" from Apple, I'm not fresh out of high school, VHS isn't dominating video stores, Microsoft has gaming systems, and Nintendo isn't still using N64 or Super Nintendo controllers that are modified so why can't Sony come up with something better. To be completely honest the controllers are the main reason I have faded away from Playstation.....I never liked them. The design looks like a cross-breed of a PS2 and a kitchen size George Foreman grill in the same ugly-plastic black that's been around for years. Nintendo and Microsoft have evolved the design of their consoles and controllers, why can't Sony?

Price comparison; Nintendo wins this one easily.
I can go spend $400 (US) and buy a Wii plus an extra controller, and some games. I can go spend $600 and buy a 360 plus an extra controller, and some games. I can go spend $800 and buy a PS3 with an extra controller, and some games.

Online comparison; 360 wins this one easily.
Xbox Live is miles ahead of everyone else. Though I'm optimistic about Nintendo b/c I've heard good things about the DS and Wi-Fi. I really have no idea what to expect from Sony.

Graphics/HD comparison; Sony wins this one barely.
Only b/c they include the Blu-ray player in every system. I believe game graphics will be equal b/t the PS3 and 360. Though right now HD-DVD is getting better publicity than Blu-Ray b/c of cost and some of the compression some Blu-ray dvd's were using.

Sorry about the rant.....too many console threads going on nowadays and I don't feel like jumping in each one.
:)

Mavimao

Oct 20, 2006, 03:55 PM

Why do you think the Wii is based on the same tech the GC was?

OK, let me voice my opinion here. The wii is an upgrade internally. It is NOT the same tech as the GC. It is the same architecture, yes, but there is a 2 fold increase. Whether or not that's a substantial upgrade is definitely arguable. However, don't say that a first gen quicksilver is the same tech as a first gen sawtooth.

I personally don't get what people are all up in arms about keeping the same system architecture? I think starting from the ground up only hiders development. Look at the DS: it uses the same architecture as the GBA (ARM processor) and yet I don't hear anyone calling it the same thing as a GBA - or as much anyway. Both handhelds even has the same 2d engine! So come on, let's argue whether the upgrade (+ shrinkage) is adequate, not that the Wii is a new case with overstocked GC parts.

plinkoman

Oct 20, 2006, 04:03 PM

This coming from someone who obviously isn't involved enough in these forums to know just how much bashing of every console I've done. 360, PS3, Wii, doesn't matter, I point out the BS when it comes. So you can take that little allegation of yours and stick it where it belongs.

first of all, notice how I said "for the most part". I'm not going to get into an argument as to whether or not you or I are a fanboy; I was merely pointing out that sony has gone back on a good deal more promises than nintendo has. and how have you not noticed my presence on these forums? I'm involved as much as you are; and I've been here 2 years longer than you have.

as for your pointing out of bs; you seem to do it as fox news would. you ignore bs against your favored console (ok if I word it that way :rolleyes: ? because it so blatantly obviously is your preference.), but you go out of your way to point out bs on nintendo's behalf. and for microsoft, yes, I know, you have a 360; I never said you were biased for or against microsoft.

the wii is based on gc hardware, but it most certainly is more powerful. but it costs $250 and not $400-$600. that, in addition to the new style of gameplay, was what nintendo was/is trying to accomplish with the wii. they stayed out of hd and the graphics wars between sony and microsoft for a very good reason. that is they probably would have failed miserably. so instead, they make a more affordable console, and add something new too it. please tell me what is so horribly wrong with that. you may think it's a cheap trick to try and stay in the game (and maybe it is), but either way it has a lot of potential to be something quite interesting and enjoyable. I like the idea, I want to try it, as do many others. see, thats something called an opinion. I like the idea, you don't, whatever. what matters to me is the games, not whether or not you or I think the console has improved enough over its predecessor.

evilgEEk

Oct 20, 2006, 04:55 PM

DVD playback, region-free games, wifi, HD....
I've never really understood why a console having DVD playback ability is really that big of a deal. Don't most folks nowadays have that ability already? I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone without the ability to already play DVDs.

It is too bad they didn't include HD support though. It doesn't bother me one way or the other, but I know a lot of folks spent a lot of money on over-priced televisions, so they want to make sure they can continue rationalizing the amount of money they spent on the thing by playing games in HD. Yes, I'm bitter because I want an HD TV but can't rationalize the price. ;)

Anyway, the Wii as it stands is the perfect little machine for me. I don't care about "realistic" graphics, gameplay (and price) is much more important to me.

insaner

Oct 20, 2006, 05:11 PM

mac000

Oct 20, 2006, 06:38 PM

This coming from someone who obviously isn't involved enough in these forums to know just how much bashing of every console I've done. 360, PS3, Wii, doesn't matter, I point out the BS when it comes. So you can take that little allegation of yours and stick it where it belongs.

Why do you think the Wii is based on the same tech the GC was? Because Nintendo didn't want to push out a 4-600 dollar console. It's years old technology that those who already own a GC have. Hell, even raggedJimmi points this out and is the main reason he's not buying one now. The only additions to this console are backward compatibility and a new remote. Hardly seems fair to those who want the console, doesn't it? But Nintendo doesn't care, their happy with where they are (which is making profits on the units and not losses, like MS or Sony) which is why the Wii is what it is and nothing more.

So the Wii has wifi. Big deal, my mistake. Where's the DVD playback? something that would have cost them nearly nothing to implement. It's not there. HD is not there. Where's the region-free game play? The more you put into a console the more the end user gets out of it. Not everyone wants or has room for 3 consoles and a DVD player.

in a very "raw' fashion that was pretty well explained. The more and more i think about it, the more I think the Wii is a lot of HYPE. But i will have to be the determinant when retailers get their kiosks instore.

Its a shame, but a fact - that nintendo really doesn't care, but in the bottleneck of it all i guess i wouldn't either if i were them - making the amount of money the company is.

sikkinixx

Oct 20, 2006, 06:42 PM

why do these topics keep starting! AHH! more damn Wii vs Sony, Sony vs MS, MS vs Wii, even though around here its Sony (ie. satan) vs everyone else in the gaming world :rolleyes: cant we all just get along...?

XNine

Oct 20, 2006, 08:18 PM

first of all, notice how I said "for the most part". I'm not going to get into an argument as to whether or not you or I are a fanboy; I was merely pointing out that sony has gone back on a good deal more promises than nintendo has. and how have you not noticed my presence on these forums? I'm involved as much as you are; and I've been here 2 years longer than you have.

[QUOTE]as for your pointing out of bs; you seem to do it as fox news would. you ignore bs against your favored console (ok if I word it that way :rolleyes: ? because it so blatantly obviously is your preference.),
Dude, I'm not even getting a PS3. I loved the PS and PS2, but I'm trying to figure out how the PS3 is my favorite console if I'm not even getting one?

but you go out of your way to point out bs on nintendo's behalf. and for microsoft, yes, I know, you have a 360; I never said you were biased for or against microsoft.
And I pointed out a LOT of flaws that the 360 has as well. Lack of launch titles, no-save transfers from original xbox, backward compatibility sucks, no wifi out of the box, etc. etc. etc. I've also pointed out how crappy Sony has been treating it's publishers, how it has in the past done some stupid things with gimmicks (FF and the HD/network adapter anyone?)

But the simple fact is that I do no care about rumble, I do not care about waving around a controller. All i want are some good games, and a basic controller. No rumble, no waving, no axis movements. If I wanted all of that I'd buy those 200 dollar joysticks and play PC games. And I don't want to play Mario 546, or any spin offs. Sorry, I got tired of that after the N64.

the wii is based on gc hardware, but it most certainly is more powerful. but it costs $250 and not $400-$600. that, in addition to the new style of gameplay, was what nintendo was/is trying to accomplish with the wii. they stayed out of hd and the graphics wars between sony and microsoft for a very good reason. that is they probably would have failed miserably. so instead, they make a more affordable console, and add something new too it. please tell me what is so horribly wrong with that.
Nothing is wrong with that at all.

you may think it's a cheap trick to try and stay in the game (and maybe it is), but either way it has a lot of potential to be something quite interesting and enjoyable. I like the idea, I want to try it, as do many others. see, thats something called an opinion. I like the idea, you don't, whatever. what matters to me is the games, not whether or not you or I think the console has improved enough over its predecessor.

I didn't say others couldn't have their opinions. Ours differ. However, but you choose to blatantly throw around the ever-so-worn-out-flameboy-remark. Where as i only stated my opinion, without the name calling.

Nintendo is farther ahead than either Sony or MS. Maybe not in market share in most places, but in profits they are far ahead. Good on them. However, the console's lack of FPS and RPG games is what infuriates me. And no, Metroid was not a good FPS. Though, Halo is getting quite old as well, and I never even bothered to play Killzone or whatever the hell Sony had.

So until then, I guess I'm going to go make some dinner, then drink myself to sleep and maybe go work out in the morning.

evilgEEk

Oct 20, 2006, 08:59 PM

However, the console's lack of FPS and RPG games is what infuriates me.
I'm definitely with you on the lack of RPG games, don't really care about FPS, but RPG is my favorite genre. I'm actually considering buying a used (or new since they're fairly cheap now) PS2 just so I can play some of the RPG titles they offer.

I'll never be able to rationalize spending $400+ on a console though, so it will definitely be Wii all the way for me.

Here's a question for everyone...

This next gen release of consoles has brought a LOT of attention to high console prices, so what's the cut-off point? When do you think we'll see our first $1000 console? When will consumers say "That's enough!"?

I think we're going to see a lot of that with the PS3 even now. That's just way too much money for a game console, because that's what it is, a gaming console. I don't care how you try to spin it with Blu-Ray (which might not even survive the format war...) or any other "super-computer" technolgies. :rolleyes:

OldSkoolNJ

Oct 20, 2006, 09:50 PM

WHY IS THERE SO MUCH POLITICS OVER A GAME SYSTEM(s)?!?!?!?

Now this isnt coming from some old guy (allbeit I am not a kid either) but isnt this thing for playing games and having some fun? Also this comes from someone who has 6 different game systems and has owned almost all that existed. So dont tout me as a non gamer who "Doesnt Get It". I really think its ridiculous some of you are arguing over politics of a game system. Remember ... "GAME" system. Its a game .. buy it if you like and damn have fun .. if not .. oh well theres always Mouse Trap (which happens to be the best board game ever.. call me if you are playing ..ill bring the beer).

kevin

MacRumorUser

Oct 21, 2006, 03:31 AM

I've never really understood why a console having DVD playback ability is really that big of a deal. Don't most folks nowadays have that ability already? I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone without the ability to already play DVDs.

Because people have more than 1 tv set, more than 1 room and so extra dvd would be handy for a lot of people.

However the biggest benefit Nintendo would have got from including DVD is by offering non gamers somthing extra & familiar.

Nintendo clearly stated that their brief/goal for the revolution was to attract non gamers. Too bring people who wouldnt ordinarily play games into there arms by giving them a comfortable familiar experience. (check out the wii ads)

DVD playback would give the non gamer added justification to be tempted, by excluding it they have made it potentially even harder to accomplish what there original brief was to achieve.

Yes it's saved them a few million, but if they had included it and achieved their goal, more games would be sold and more accessories etc, and so the extra cost would have been more than justified in Nintendo HQ. Remember Nintendo are the only company selling their console for profit straight off the bat, so they could have easily taken the hit.

evilgEEk

Oct 21, 2006, 08:18 AM

Meh... I don't buy it.

Back in the days of PS2 and Xbox I would agree, but not today.

I just don't see it as that big of a deal anymore. If folks want a DVD player for the TV in the other room, they'll go buy one for 30 bucks (http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=4529480).

zap2

Oct 21, 2006, 12:07 PM

Wow....terrible title,I thought it was Nintendo say that a Wii 2 was coming out next year.

As for the Wii dieing..its not going to happen. Other system have had Touch screens, but the DS is the winner of them all. Not to mention Games on the Wii are a huge part of getting gamers to buy a Wii.

calyxman

Oct 21, 2006, 12:20 PM

Nintendo lost me as a consumer after the N64. It seems in every console generation, the big "N" has to take the road least taken and end up pissing off its gamers. You know all those Sony and MS gamers? A lot of them used to be Nintendo gamers.

Personally, I think the company will dwindle more into a cult brand with a small, but profitable, following. In the end, if Nintendo makes a profit, then the company is happy. It's not attempting world domination like MS and Sony.

white89gt

Oct 21, 2006, 10:14 PM

...It seems in every console generation, the big "N" has to take the road least taken and end up pissing off its gamers. You know all those Sony and MS gamers? A lot of them used to be Nintendo gamers.

The road least taken is sometimes the better one. Nintendo has made a few wrong turns, but unless there's something they aren't telling us the Wii is money (not money as in Nintendo making money, but money as in good or awesome).

tominated

Oct 21, 2006, 11:11 PM

maybe they will come out with a version that will work with the wii?:confused:

smitty330

Oct 23, 2006, 03:57 PM

This all just sounds like some made up by sony or microsoft bull crap....

Abulia

Oct 24, 2006, 11:04 AM

Blah blah blah...lots of talking...same people saying the same things.

I always like how Wii discussions boil down to "it's the gameplay!"

Okay sure, but it's a falacy to presume that "kick ass, next gen graphics" and "great gameplay" are mututally exclusive. They're. Not.

Nintendo doesn't use farie dust and magic pixies on their games and the Wii-controller; they do not have the patent on good gameplay.

Considering their competitive advantage is a controller scheme that anyone could copy with a bit of effort, the Wii doesn't have much going for it beyond their library of exclusive franchises.

As we saw how well that worked for the Gamecube.

eva01

Oct 24, 2006, 11:07 AM

As we saw how well that worked for the Gamecube.

Yep every quarter they were in the green while the other two were in the red a lot if i remember correctly.

So it worked pretty well since they made money off of it.

calyxman

Oct 24, 2006, 11:49 AM

Yep every quarter they were in the green while the other two were in the red a lot if i remember correctly.

So it worked pretty well since they made money off of it.

As a consumer, I don't remember the last time I made a buying decision on a manufactured good contingent on whether the company made a profit producing that good. In other words, I'm the customer, not the business owner.

You can diss the other two competitors, but the bottom line is Microsoft is only into its second game console and Sony its third.

Ultimately, gamers will vote with their wallets.

atszyman

Oct 24, 2006, 12:04 PM

As a consumer, I don't remember the last time I made a buying decision on a manufactured good contingent on whether the company made a profit producing that good. In other words, I'm the customer, not the business owner.

I guess I don't understand why do people complain when a company follows up a profitable "crappy" product with another "crappy" product. No one is forcing them to buy it. It's not like I go out and complain when Kleenex introduces a new tissue because I prefer Puffs.

What is it about consumer electronics that makes people so insecure in their purchase that they must go out and trash the competition?

Make your purchase, if you like it, be happy. If you don't like it, return it or sell it. If you really like it be glad when the company turns profits since it will ensure the life of the product for the time being. If you want a PS3 get a PS3, if you want a Wii, get a Wii. Why must everyone complain that the PS3 is too expensive and the Wii isn't powerful, and what compels people to defend either one? No one is forcing you to buy either. If you have to trash the competition to feel secure in your purchase maybe you should look deep and figure out what you really want. If you get what you want it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Mavimao

Oct 24, 2006, 12:28 PM

jdechko

Oct 24, 2006, 12:54 PM

Agreed. It's what I've said for a while (maybe not every time, but it's how I feel). Competition is good. Product differentiation is good - it keeps companies from competing solely on price alone. That and product branding are why someone would go spend 60k+ on a Lexus and others would spend 12k on a Kia (or some other "cheap" car).

ghall

Oct 24, 2006, 04:57 PM

....If all the Wii was ever going to be was a machine to run the virtual console feature, I'd still buy it....twice! Just to be able to play all the old games again without having to have each system and the cartridge or CD is worth it without all the other stuff that the Wii is going to be able to do.

Amen to that. Actually, virtual console is the only reason I want the Wii.

calyxman

Oct 24, 2006, 06:19 PM

I guess I don't understand why do people complain when a company follows up a profitable "crappy" product with another "crappy" product. No one is forcing them to buy it. It's not like I go out and complain when Kleenex introduces a new tissue because I prefer Puffs.

What is it about consumer electronics that makes people so insecure in their purchase that they must go out and trash the competition?

Make your purchase, if you like it, be happy. If you don't like it, return it or sell it. If you really like it be glad when the company turns profits since it will ensure the life of the product for the time being. If you want a PS3 get a PS3, if you want a Wii, get a Wii. Why must everyone complain that the PS3 is too expensive and the Wii isn't powerful, and what compels people to defend either one? No one is forcing you to buy either. If you have to trash the competition to feel secure in your purchase maybe you should look deep and figure out what you really want. If you get what you want it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks.

That's perfectly fine, but at the same time consumers have opinions, some fall for hype and propaganda while others don't. I'm not trashing Nintendo, nor do I pick favorites with MS/Sony.

Before the transition to Intel, a majority of people on this forum argued that the Power PC was sufficient for the mac platform, while few--including myself--argued that it was vital for Apple to switch support to Intel/AMD as performance with the Power PC wouldn't keep up, particularly in the notebook arena. Who got the last laugh?

Anyway, based on the responses in this forum, it seems pretty obvious that the an overwhelming number of people tilt towards Nintendo. So I don't think I will waste any energy in continuing this argument. If you want to spend money on a Wii, PS3, 360, or whatever, power to you.

zap2

Oct 24, 2006, 06:34 PM

[QUOTE=calyxman]

Before the transition to Intel, a majority of people on this forum argued that the Power PC was sufficient for the mac platform, while few--including myself--argued that it was vital for Apple to switch support to Intel/AMD as performance with the Power PC wouldn't keep up, particularly in the notebook arena. Who got the last laugh?
/QUOTE]

Well it wasn't PPC that was bad, it was IBM/Freescale who stopped making good chips. Also up until the Core chips by Intel, the basic desktop line sucked for Intel. The P4 was a crappy chip...G5 was much nice, if IBM had made a low powered G5 in 2004, they I could see Apple use PPC chips today. Intel's laptop chips have been better then the G4 for a while, but IBM/Freescale could have work harder, and should have!

Dagless

Oct 25, 2006, 06:49 PM

sorry about my first post in this thread. I was sat at a lovely internet cafe for just 20 minutes so I didn't have long. Basically my point is along the lines of "games", y'awl know those right?

So there's a machine out (coming out?) that has a better system for controlling than the Wii. Blow me sideways! You mean someone actually designed something better than a 3-5 year old controller? assuming Nintendo focused on the control first, they began on the Wii just after the Cube.

I suppose the PS3 and Xbox have NO lifespan as a Mac Pro pisses on them both? I'd love to see a PS3 or 360 run dual 30" ACDs. OH THEY CAN'T THEY ARE INSIGNIFICANT.

and to just expand on my original point... Twilight Princess coming out for this new machine/controller? How about Metroid Prime 3, Smash Bros Brawl? Nah. nevermind. Sorta the exact same reason I probably won't be buying any other console as they don't really have my games. ho hum.

Utterly pathetic thread.