The Wii's popularity pisses me off!
- Thread starter pittpizza
- Start date
- Status
Blitz
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Others who only play hardcore, traditional games really can only consider the 360 and PS3 as their only/main/first console as they offer the traditional gaming experience as there main priority and thus have a ton more games in those genres. But they are lacking in the pick up and play, motion controlled simple games that your buddy likes.
[/QUOTE]
What the hell is a hardcore game? The word hardcore for gaming is so
ing overused it's pathetic.
Zelda, Metroid, SMBG, Resident Evil, Fire Emblem, Soulcalibur, MOH are these not traditional enough? Hell Nintendo still makes the same games that they've always made which makes them a helluva lot more traditional than the 360. The PS3 still has some time yet.
Sorry just a rant in general. The 360 fanboys are horrible with the hardcore shit. I guess it helps them feel better about their broken down POS hardware.
Others who only play hardcore, traditional games really can only consider the 360 and PS3 as their only/main/first console as they offer the traditional gaming experience as there main priority and thus have a ton more games in those genres. But they are lacking in the pick up and play, motion controlled simple games that your buddy likes.
[/QUOTE]
What the hell is a hardcore game? The word hardcore for gaming is so
ing overused it's pathetic.Zelda, Metroid, SMBG, Resident Evil, Fire Emblem, Soulcalibur, MOH are these not traditional enough? Hell Nintendo still makes the same games that they've always made which makes them a helluva lot more traditional than the 360. The PS3 still has some time yet.
Sorry just a rant in general. The 360 fanboys are horrible with the hardcore shit. I guess it helps them feel better about their broken down POS hardware.
taint mcgee
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Wii isn't fun.
SpikeSpiegel
CAGiversary!
I for one am glad Nintendo is getting a piece of the pie again even if I'm not a fan of waggling myself. I just hope they push for better 3rd party titles if possible.
There are only so many entertainment dollars available for videogames. That's why it's called the videogame market, onto itself. People don't have an endless supply of cash to spend on luxury items, regardless of what you minors without mortgages do with your dollars after putting gas in your cars.
Just like the auto market, or the movie market, or the Audio CD market, their total dollars may grow or shrink year to year, but the relatively consistent clump of money is, on average, a basis for the pie to which every company is competing for a bigger slice.
So, yes, the Wii is in direct competition with the PS3 and 360, and DS and PSP whether anyone admits it or not. Now the Wii being responsible for an expansion of the market is another subject. We'd have to analyze demographhic data on purchasers, if there are any reliable data to be looked at at all. I surely hope, though, that someone is keeping track of the white trash and homophobe purchasing habits. I have to say that from experience with the lower income bracket households, they all have 360's !
Just like the auto market, or the movie market, or the Audio CD market, their total dollars may grow or shrink year to year, but the relatively consistent clump of money is, on average, a basis for the pie to which every company is competing for a bigger slice.
So, yes, the Wii is in direct competition with the PS3 and 360, and DS and PSP whether anyone admits it or not. Now the Wii being responsible for an expansion of the market is another subject. We'd have to analyze demographhic data on purchasers, if there are any reliable data to be looked at at all. I surely hope, though, that someone is keeping track of the white trash and homophobe purchasing habits. I have to say that from experience with the lower income bracket households, they all have 360's !
[quote name='Blitz']What the hell is a hardcore game? The word hardcore for gaming is so ing overused it's pathetic.
Zelda, Metroid, SMBG, Resident Evil, Fire Emblem, Soulcalibur, MOH are these not traditional enough? Hell Nintendo still makes the same games that they've always made which makes them a helluva lot more traditional than the 360. The PS3 still has some time yet.
Sorry just a rant in general. The 360 fanboys are horrible with the hardcore shit. I guess it helps them feel better about their broken down POS hardware.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I hate the word hardcore as well. Just couldn't think of a better term for traditional games.
And yes, of course the Wii has hardcore games, just less of them. And especially less AAA exclusives. Mario Galaxy, Zelda and Metroid Prime 3 are mind numbingly awesome, and Super Paper Mario was ok.
Beyond that, I've not played anything I enjoyed. RE4 is excluded as I played it on the Cube. Fire Emblem is definitely hardcore, but I hate strategy RPGs. And MoH is ok, but no point playing it when there's so many better FPS on the 360 for me to catch up on since I just got one a couple months ago.
Nintendo and third parties are focusing on casual and non-gamers more, so we're getting less traditional games.
Some are there, but not near enough (3 worth buying in a year for me) to keep me (and most real gamers) satisfied as my only or main console.
That's the point I've been making all along with saying the Wii competes less directly than the other two dow with each other. It just doesn't have enough "hardcore" games to be a valid first/only system for anyone other than casual gamers, non-gamers and fanboys who snap up anything Nintendo shits out.
ing overused it's pathetic.Zelda, Metroid, SMBG, Resident Evil, Fire Emblem, Soulcalibur, MOH are these not traditional enough? Hell Nintendo still makes the same games that they've always made which makes them a helluva lot more traditional than the 360. The PS3 still has some time yet.
Sorry just a rant in general. The 360 fanboys are horrible with the hardcore shit. I guess it helps them feel better about their broken down POS hardware.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I hate the word hardcore as well. Just couldn't think of a better term for traditional games.
And yes, of course the Wii has hardcore games, just less of them. And especially less AAA exclusives. Mario Galaxy, Zelda and Metroid Prime 3 are mind numbingly awesome, and Super Paper Mario was ok.
Beyond that, I've not played anything I enjoyed. RE4 is excluded as I played it on the Cube. Fire Emblem is definitely hardcore, but I hate strategy RPGs. And MoH is ok, but no point playing it when there's so many better FPS on the 360 for me to catch up on since I just got one a couple months ago.
Nintendo and third parties are focusing on casual and non-gamers more, so we're getting less traditional games.
Some are there, but not near enough (3 worth buying in a year for me) to keep me (and most real gamers) satisfied as my only or main console.
That's the point I've been making all along with saying the Wii competes less directly than the other two dow with each other. It just doesn't have enough "hardcore" games to be a valid first/only system for anyone other than casual gamers, non-gamers and fanboys who snap up anything Nintendo shits out.
[quote name='bmulligan']
So, yes, the Wii is in direct competition with the PS3 and 360, and DS and PSP whether anyone admits it or not. [/QUOTE]
No one has said that they are not all in direct competition. Just that their are different degrees of competition as they are focused at different markets.
Someone wants FPS, racing, sports and other traditional games, they're not really going to consider a Wii as it pretty much sucks balls on that front so far. So the Wii is competing very directly for those dollars. At least not as those people's first/only console. It may come back in the picture if said person decides to buy a second console.
And similarly, someone that wants to play pick up and play stuff like Wii sports, wants the family friendly console for their kids etc. etc. isn't really going to consider a PS3 or 360 as their first/main consoles.
So they do all compete, but some compete more directly with each other than do others.
I don't see why it's hard to grasp. Like apples and oranges (both fruit but very different), the Wii and PS3/360 and all video game machines. But the Wii will appeal to a different set of people than the PS3/360 with some overlap of course.
So, yes, the Wii is in direct competition with the PS3 and 360, and DS and PSP whether anyone admits it or not. [/QUOTE]
No one has said that they are not all in direct competition. Just that their are different degrees of competition as they are focused at different markets.
Someone wants FPS, racing, sports and other traditional games, they're not really going to consider a Wii as it pretty much sucks balls on that front so far. So the Wii is competing very directly for those dollars. At least not as those people's first/only console. It may come back in the picture if said person decides to buy a second console.
And similarly, someone that wants to play pick up and play stuff like Wii sports, wants the family friendly console for their kids etc. etc. isn't really going to consider a PS3 or 360 as their first/main consoles.
So they do all compete, but some compete more directly with each other than do others.
I don't see why it's hard to grasp. Like apples and oranges (both fruit but very different), the Wii and PS3/360 and all video game machines. But the Wii will appeal to a different set of people than the PS3/360 with some overlap of course.
mega_n00bzer
Banned
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, I hate the word hardcore as well. Just couldn't think of a better term for traditional games.
And yes, of course the Wii has hardcore games, just less of them. And especially less AAA exclusives. Mario Galaxy, Zelda and Metroid Prime 3 are mind numbingly awesome, and Super Paper Mario was ok.
Beyond that, I've not played anything I enjoyed. RE4 is excluded as I played it on the Cube. Fire Emblem is definitely hardcore, but I hate strategy RPGs. And MoH is ok, but no point playing it when there's so many better FPS on the 360 for me to catch up on since I just got one a couple months ago.
Nintendo and third parties are focusing on casual and non-gamers more, so we're getting less traditional games.
Some are there, but not near enough (3 worth buying in a year for me) to keep me (and most real gamers) satisfied as my only or main console.
That's the point I've been making all along with saying the Wii competes less directly than the other two dow with each other. It just doesn't have enough "hardcore" games to be a valid first/only system for anyone other than casual gamers, non-gamers and fanboys who snap up anything Nintendo shits out.[/quote]
I also hate the word hardcore. reminds me of hardcore porn, and I do not like to associate games with sex. although, being a fan of wii, I get countless jokes on the matter. com'on people, wiibrator, though arousing, is not funny
And yes, of course the Wii has hardcore games, just less of them. And especially less AAA exclusives. Mario Galaxy, Zelda and Metroid Prime 3 are mind numbingly awesome, and Super Paper Mario was ok.
Beyond that, I've not played anything I enjoyed. RE4 is excluded as I played it on the Cube. Fire Emblem is definitely hardcore, but I hate strategy RPGs. And MoH is ok, but no point playing it when there's so many better FPS on the 360 for me to catch up on since I just got one a couple months ago.
Nintendo and third parties are focusing on casual and non-gamers more, so we're getting less traditional games.
Some are there, but not near enough (3 worth buying in a year for me) to keep me (and most real gamers) satisfied as my only or main console.
That's the point I've been making all along with saying the Wii competes less directly than the other two dow with each other. It just doesn't have enough "hardcore" games to be a valid first/only system for anyone other than casual gamers, non-gamers and fanboys who snap up anything Nintendo shits out.[/quote]
I also hate the word hardcore. reminds me of hardcore porn, and I do not like to associate games with sex. although, being a fan of wii, I get countless jokes on the matter. com'on people, wiibrator, though arousing, is not funny
[quote name='bmulligan']There are only so many entertainment dollars available for videogames. That's why it's called the videogame market, onto itself. People don't have an endless supply of cash to spend on luxury items, regardless of what you minors without mortgages do with your dollars after putting gas in your cars.
Just like the auto market, or the movie market, or the Audio CD market, their total dollars may grow or shrink year to year, but the relatively consistent clump of money is, on average, a basis for the pie to which every company is competing for a bigger slice.
So, yes, the Wii is in direct competition with the PS3 and 360, and DS and PSP whether anyone admits it or not. Now the Wii being responsible for an expansion of the market is another subject. We'd have to analyze demographhic data on purchasers, if there are any reliable data to be looked at at all. I surely hope, though, that someone is keeping track of the white trash and homophobe purchasing habits. I have to say that from experience with the lower income bracket households, they all have 360's ![/quote]
As dmaul said, it is a matter of degree.
You talk about different markets - the auto market, movie market, Audio CD market, and then companies competing within these markets. You say that there are only so many dollars available for the "video game market".
A market is just a way to describe a group of similar products that are competing with eachother in some way or another. You can make them as broad or as specific as you want, and include or exclude whatever you want. It's not like there is one market for video games and The Wii/DS/360/etc all belong to this market and are thus competing. You could broaden that to the "Entertainment market" and now movies are competing as well. Everything in that market is competing. Or you could refine it to the "portable video game market" and only the DS and PSP are included in that market. Just because you put a title to the market does not mean that those products aren't competing less directly with things in a more broad market or more directly with things in a more refined market.
Since we have limited resources, all products everywhere compete with eachother in some degree. A banana and a Wii compete. Why? Because I have only so much money and I have to decide between how much of each item I want and how much money I am willing to spend on each. So yes, a banana and a Wii compete. However the banana and Wii don't compete to the same degree as the Wii and the 360. A Wii and a 360 are much more similar to eachother (they are closer "substitutes") than a banana and a Wii, so the 360 and the Wii are competing more directly. However, the PS3 and the 360 are even better "substitutes" than the Wii and the 360, so the PS3 and the 360 are competing more directly than the Wii and the 360.
All this argument is about is a matter of degree of substitution. Does anyone here actually believe that the Wii is as similar to a 360 as a PS3? If you do, then you can continue to argue that the Wii is competing as directly with a 360 as a PS3 is. Nintendo's whole strategy this generation has been in making their console more different. Nobody is arguing that they aren't in direct competition at all, just that it is a matter of degree.
Just like the auto market, or the movie market, or the Audio CD market, their total dollars may grow or shrink year to year, but the relatively consistent clump of money is, on average, a basis for the pie to which every company is competing for a bigger slice.
So, yes, the Wii is in direct competition with the PS3 and 360, and DS and PSP whether anyone admits it or not. Now the Wii being responsible for an expansion of the market is another subject. We'd have to analyze demographhic data on purchasers, if there are any reliable data to be looked at at all. I surely hope, though, that someone is keeping track of the white trash and homophobe purchasing habits. I have to say that from experience with the lower income bracket households, they all have 360's ![/quote]
As dmaul said, it is a matter of degree.
You talk about different markets - the auto market, movie market, Audio CD market, and then companies competing within these markets. You say that there are only so many dollars available for the "video game market".
A market is just a way to describe a group of similar products that are competing with eachother in some way or another. You can make them as broad or as specific as you want, and include or exclude whatever you want. It's not like there is one market for video games and The Wii/DS/360/etc all belong to this market and are thus competing. You could broaden that to the "Entertainment market" and now movies are competing as well. Everything in that market is competing. Or you could refine it to the "portable video game market" and only the DS and PSP are included in that market. Just because you put a title to the market does not mean that those products aren't competing less directly with things in a more broad market or more directly with things in a more refined market.
Since we have limited resources, all products everywhere compete with eachother in some degree. A banana and a Wii compete. Why? Because I have only so much money and I have to decide between how much of each item I want and how much money I am willing to spend on each. So yes, a banana and a Wii compete. However the banana and Wii don't compete to the same degree as the Wii and the 360. A Wii and a 360 are much more similar to eachother (they are closer "substitutes") than a banana and a Wii, so the 360 and the Wii are competing more directly. However, the PS3 and the 360 are even better "substitutes" than the Wii and the 360, so the PS3 and the 360 are competing more directly than the Wii and the 360.
All this argument is about is a matter of degree of substitution. Does anyone here actually believe that the Wii is as similar to a 360 as a PS3? If you do, then you can continue to argue that the Wii is competing as directly with a 360 as a PS3 is. Nintendo's whole strategy this generation has been in making their console more different. Nobody is arguing that they aren't in direct competition at all, just that it is a matter of degree.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']No one has said that they are not all in direct competition. Just that their are different degrees of competition as they are focused at different markets.
Someone wants FPS, racing, sports and other traditional games, they're not really going to consider a Wii as it pretty much sucks balls on that front so far. So the Wii is competing very directly for those dollars. At least not as those people's first/only console. It may come back in the picture if said person decides to buy a second console.
And similarly, someone that wants to play pick up and play stuff like Wii sports, wants the family friendly console for their kids etc. etc. isn't really going to consider a PS3 or 360 as their first/main consoles.
So they do all compete, but some compete more directly with each other than do others.
I don't see why it's hard to grasp. Like apples and oranges (both fruit but very different), the Wii and PS3/360 and all video game machines. But the Wii will appeal to a different set of people than the PS3/360 with some overlap of course.[/quote]
It's not hard to grasp, some people are just trolls or dumb. Tough to tell which.
Someone wants FPS, racing, sports and other traditional games, they're not really going to consider a Wii as it pretty much sucks balls on that front so far. So the Wii is competing very directly for those dollars. At least not as those people's first/only console. It may come back in the picture if said person decides to buy a second console.
And similarly, someone that wants to play pick up and play stuff like Wii sports, wants the family friendly console for their kids etc. etc. isn't really going to consider a PS3 or 360 as their first/main consoles.
So they do all compete, but some compete more directly with each other than do others.
I don't see why it's hard to grasp. Like apples and oranges (both fruit but very different), the Wii and PS3/360 and all video game machines. But the Wii will appeal to a different set of people than the PS3/360 with some overlap of course.[/quote]
It's not hard to grasp, some people are just trolls or dumb. Tough to tell which.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']No one has said that they are not all in direct competition. Just that their are different degrees of competition as they are focused at different markets.
Someone wants FPS, racing, sports and other traditional games, they're not really going to consider a Wii as it pretty much sucks balls on that front so far. So the Wii is competing very directly for those dollars. At least not as those people's first/only console. It may come back in the picture if said person decides to buy a second console.
And similarly, someone that wants to play pick up and play stuff like Wii sports, wants the family friendly console for their kids etc. etc. isn't really going to consider a PS3 or 360 as their first/main consoles.
So they do all compete, but some compete more directly with each other than do others.
I don't see why it's hard to grasp. Like apples and oranges (both fruit but very different), the Wii and PS3/360 and all video game machines. But the Wii will appeal to a different set of people than the PS3/360 with some overlap of course.[/quote]
It's not hard to grasp, some people are just trolls or dumb.
Someone wants FPS, racing, sports and other traditional games, they're not really going to consider a Wii as it pretty much sucks balls on that front so far. So the Wii is competing very directly for those dollars. At least not as those people's first/only console. It may come back in the picture if said person decides to buy a second console.
And similarly, someone that wants to play pick up and play stuff like Wii sports, wants the family friendly console for their kids etc. etc. isn't really going to consider a PS3 or 360 as their first/main consoles.
So they do all compete, but some compete more directly with each other than do others.
I don't see why it's hard to grasp. Like apples and oranges (both fruit but very different), the Wii and PS3/360 and all video game machines. But the Wii will appeal to a different set of people than the PS3/360 with some overlap of course.[/quote]
It's not hard to grasp, some people are just trolls or dumb.
[quote name='drfunk85']
All this argument is about is a matter of degree of substitution. Does anyone here actually believe that the Wii is as similar to a 360 as a PS3? If you do, then you can continue to argue that the Wii is competing as directly with a 360 as a PS3 is. Nintendo's whole strategy this generation has been in making their console more different. Nobody is arguing that they aren't in direct competition at all, just that it is a matter of degree.[/QUOTE]
Exactly! Well put.
All this argument is about is a matter of degree of substitution. Does anyone here actually believe that the Wii is as similar to a 360 as a PS3? If you do, then you can continue to argue that the Wii is competing as directly with a 360 as a PS3 is. Nintendo's whole strategy this generation has been in making their console more different. Nobody is arguing that they aren't in direct competition at all, just that it is a matter of degree.[/QUOTE]
Exactly! Well put.
[quote name='pittpizza']It's not hard to grasp, some people are just trolls or dumb. Tough to tell which.[/QUOTE]
Again.
Being insistent on one's viewpoint, combined with the ability to explain it cohesively, soundly, and logically - all the while avoiding hyperbole and sensationalism - is not trolling. It just isn't, and it really speaks about how you've decided to approach argument tactics with such claims.
The above also negates stupidity and ignorance in a fell, two-for-one swoop. It would be one thing if all the posts were "nu uh u wrong" affairs, but they're not.
The fact that you see this all as antagonistic is really....odd. If anything, that would be troll behavior, but even that would be a stretch. It's certainly negative if I have to remember "every time I disagree with pittpizza, he's going to throw a fit and call me and anyone who agrees with me a stupid troll."
I'll say this again - what we gamers perceive as competing and not-competing is not the same as what the general public sees. And since they can't remember which company makes which system, couldn't tell you anything about Metal Gear Solid, and don't know what color Mario's brother's shirt is - things all well and widely known by the gaming sector - they don't see a difference in the game systems outside of which one has which games, and even that is a stretch.
So at best I'll concede that there are different groups looking at the situation differently.
For example, look at Japan. The DS Lite sells like free candy and money over there. It beats out all the consoles with flair. Over there, it's overwhelmingly competing with everything. Over here, it sells well, but no one honestly acts like a portable is a replacement for a console. We understand they are competing, but not nearly on the same level and degree over in Japan.
So again, I could maybe see the markets as retaining qualities inherent to their own countries that dictate where competition is stronger and who is going after what. But since that's variable, it's a lot more prudent to declare everything competes with everything.
Again.
Being insistent on one's viewpoint, combined with the ability to explain it cohesively, soundly, and logically - all the while avoiding hyperbole and sensationalism - is not trolling. It just isn't, and it really speaks about how you've decided to approach argument tactics with such claims.
The above also negates stupidity and ignorance in a fell, two-for-one swoop. It would be one thing if all the posts were "nu uh u wrong" affairs, but they're not.
The fact that you see this all as antagonistic is really....odd. If anything, that would be troll behavior, but even that would be a stretch. It's certainly negative if I have to remember "every time I disagree with pittpizza, he's going to throw a fit and call me and anyone who agrees with me a stupid troll."
I'll say this again - what we gamers perceive as competing and not-competing is not the same as what the general public sees. And since they can't remember which company makes which system, couldn't tell you anything about Metal Gear Solid, and don't know what color Mario's brother's shirt is - things all well and widely known by the gaming sector - they don't see a difference in the game systems outside of which one has which games, and even that is a stretch.
So at best I'll concede that there are different groups looking at the situation differently.
For example, look at Japan. The DS Lite sells like free candy and money over there. It beats out all the consoles with flair. Over there, it's overwhelmingly competing with everything. Over here, it sells well, but no one honestly acts like a portable is a replacement for a console. We understand they are competing, but not nearly on the same level and degree over in Japan.
So again, I could maybe see the markets as retaining qualities inherent to their own countries that dictate where competition is stronger and who is going after what. But since that's variable, it's a lot more prudent to declare everything competes with everything.
[quote name='Strell']
I'll say this again - what we gamers perceive as competing and not-competing is not the same as what the general public sees. And since they can't remember which company makes which system, couldn't tell you anything about Metal Gear Solid, and don't know what color Mario's brother's shirt is - things all well and widely known by the gaming sector - they don't see a difference in the game systems outside of which one has which games, and even that is a stretch.
So at best I'll concede that there are different groups looking at the situation differently.
[/QUOTE]
I think that helps prove our point, rather than debunk it.
Joe Six Pack walks into Wal-mart and asks "Do you have that game thing-a-ma-bob I played Bowling on the other week?" Clearly, the Wii is the only thing competing for this guys dollars.
Same for Joe Blow who asks for the machine that plays "that Halo" game. Or a mom asking for a good console for her kid.
People always have some reason for buying something. Even the Joe Six Packs of the world don't just walk into a store wanting any game machine. They walk in wanting a particular game or something, even if they don't know what it's called. Something has them ready to shell out the cash.
And with the Wii being so different in what it offers than the PS3/360, it just kind of separates itself even for those who know jack squat about gaming. Thus it competes less directly than do the PS3/360 which offer pretty much the same gaming experience just with different characters in the games.
And by that I mean that even for Joe Six Pack, there's more chance they'll debate between 360 or PS3 than it is that they'll debate between Wii and one of the others.
If a person plays Wii Sports, mario party/whatever mini-game/party game and decides to get a console, the 360/PS3 won't be in the running. Similarly if they play Halo, Motorstorm or some other traditional game and/or are blown away by graphics on their friends HDTV and decide to get a console, then the Wii likely won't be in the picture as it just doesn't offer that kind of experience.
That type of thing is all I mean by competing less directly. Everyone has some inkling of what they want in a console, be it informed gamers choosing what types of games they like and which has most, or a casual buying for one particular game.
With the Wii being the most distinct offering from the competition we've ever seen in any generation, it's clear it's going to compete less directly as it's going harder after an entirely separate market than the other two.
I'll say this again - what we gamers perceive as competing and not-competing is not the same as what the general public sees. And since they can't remember which company makes which system, couldn't tell you anything about Metal Gear Solid, and don't know what color Mario's brother's shirt is - things all well and widely known by the gaming sector - they don't see a difference in the game systems outside of which one has which games, and even that is a stretch.
So at best I'll concede that there are different groups looking at the situation differently.
[/QUOTE]
I think that helps prove our point, rather than debunk it.
Joe Six Pack walks into Wal-mart and asks "Do you have that game thing-a-ma-bob I played Bowling on the other week?" Clearly, the Wii is the only thing competing for this guys dollars.
Same for Joe Blow who asks for the machine that plays "that Halo" game. Or a mom asking for a good console for her kid.
People always have some reason for buying something. Even the Joe Six Packs of the world don't just walk into a store wanting any game machine. They walk in wanting a particular game or something, even if they don't know what it's called. Something has them ready to shell out the cash.
And with the Wii being so different in what it offers than the PS3/360, it just kind of separates itself even for those who know jack squat about gaming. Thus it competes less directly than do the PS3/360 which offer pretty much the same gaming experience just with different characters in the games.
And by that I mean that even for Joe Six Pack, there's more chance they'll debate between 360 or PS3 than it is that they'll debate between Wii and one of the others.
If a person plays Wii Sports, mario party/whatever mini-game/party game and decides to get a console, the 360/PS3 won't be in the running. Similarly if they play Halo, Motorstorm or some other traditional game and/or are blown away by graphics on their friends HDTV and decide to get a console, then the Wii likely won't be in the picture as it just doesn't offer that kind of experience.
That type of thing is all I mean by competing less directly. Everyone has some inkling of what they want in a console, be it informed gamers choosing what types of games they like and which has most, or a casual buying for one particular game.
With the Wii being the most distinct offering from the competition we've ever seen in any generation, it's clear it's going to compete less directly as it's going harder after an entirely separate market than the other two.
So someone who doesn't know anything about games plays Wii Bowling, and then goes to buy it, not caring at all about two other systems, and electing to never buy any other system.
And this means the Wii isn't competing?
That person just bought a game system. They aren't buying the other game systems available. That's +1 to the Wii userbase and +0 to anyone else.
Just because that person hasn't ever had any intention to play Halo doesn't preclude them from ever buying it. And who is to say they don't see Halo one night and decide it's not for them? Or for them in addition to Wii Bowling? Or for them instead of Wii Bowling? People on here jump ship all the time - I fail to see why others can't do the same.
You need to stop looking at this from your own informed perspective, with intonations of "everyone has some inkling of what they want in a console." They don't if they have no idea at all about the entire industry. And if they see Halo and decide that's their thing versus seeing Wii Bowling, then Halo wins. Likewise, if they see Wii Bowling and want that, Wii Bowling wins. The userbases go up for that respective console, which is potentially another person to sell games to.
There are people out there who have never played games. Some of those people began with the PS1, some of them began with the PS2, some began with the Xbox, some began with the Gameboy, etc etc etc. At some point, those people didn't know what they wanted. Further, nothing precludes them from getting another system - it's all up to whether or not those other systems are attractive to them.
The mass market is the best indicator of why all three aim at each other directly, because those are the ones who don't know what they want until they are told about it.
And this means the Wii isn't competing?
That person just bought a game system. They aren't buying the other game systems available. That's +1 to the Wii userbase and +0 to anyone else.
Just because that person hasn't ever had any intention to play Halo doesn't preclude them from ever buying it. And who is to say they don't see Halo one night and decide it's not for them? Or for them in addition to Wii Bowling? Or for them instead of Wii Bowling? People on here jump ship all the time - I fail to see why others can't do the same.
You need to stop looking at this from your own informed perspective, with intonations of "everyone has some inkling of what they want in a console." They don't if they have no idea at all about the entire industry. And if they see Halo and decide that's their thing versus seeing Wii Bowling, then Halo wins. Likewise, if they see Wii Bowling and want that, Wii Bowling wins. The userbases go up for that respective console, which is potentially another person to sell games to.
There are people out there who have never played games. Some of those people began with the PS1, some of them began with the PS2, some began with the Xbox, some began with the Gameboy, etc etc etc. At some point, those people didn't know what they wanted. Further, nothing precludes them from getting another system - it's all up to whether or not those other systems are attractive to them.
The mass market is the best indicator of why all three aim at each other directly, because those are the ones who don't know what they want until they are told about it.
.....
\"......Again, the Wii is competing. Just not as directly.
Systems don't really compete for the morons that impulse buy something they know nothing about.
Companies just luck into those sales as someone plays Wiisports at a party and runs to buy a Wii, or plays Halo and decides to run and buy a 360 etc. And they still compete indirectly for thesetards as the type of person who plays Wii sports and says "wow I've got to have this" probably wouldn't have the same reaction to Halo, and vice versa.
They compete DIRECTLY for the business of those that take the time to consider what types of games they want to play, and then decide what to buy.
Among those the Wii competes less directly as the decision is made early on on the broad types of games one likes. With the PS3 and 360, it comes down to price and specific exclusives when deciding.
While for Wii vs PS3/360 it's just on type of gaming experience--motion controls, pick up and play games and a few hardcore, traditional games or do you want mainly hardcore traditional games, HD, Online gaming etc?
Again, they are going after different markets. Nintendo is focused on non-gamers, casual gamers and long time supporters, and hoping to maybe get a few hardcore gamers they had lost over past gens back on board.
Sony and MS are milking the same 18-25 FPS, Madden, racer etc. gamers they've always been after, and probably hoping to score a casual gamer, nintendo fanboy etc. here and there.
Thus they are all three competing with each other, but PS3/360 are going after the SAME PIECE OF THE MARKET and thus are competing more directly with each other than they are with the Wii which is aiming at a DIFFERENT PIECE OF THE MARKET.
So they compete, just in varying DEGREES.
Systems don't really compete for the morons that impulse buy something they know nothing about.
Companies just luck into those sales as someone plays Wiisports at a party and runs to buy a Wii, or plays Halo and decides to run and buy a 360 etc. And they still compete indirectly for these
tards as the type of person who plays Wii sports and says "wow I've got to have this" probably wouldn't have the same reaction to Halo, and vice versa.They compete DIRECTLY for the business of those that take the time to consider what types of games they want to play, and then decide what to buy.
Among those the Wii competes less directly as the decision is made early on on the broad types of games one likes. With the PS3 and 360, it comes down to price and specific exclusives when deciding.
While for Wii vs PS3/360 it's just on type of gaming experience--motion controls, pick up and play games and a few hardcore, traditional games or do you want mainly hardcore traditional games, HD, Online gaming etc?
Again, they are going after different markets. Nintendo is focused on non-gamers, casual gamers and long time supporters, and hoping to maybe get a few hardcore gamers they had lost over past gens back on board.
Sony and MS are milking the same 18-25 FPS, Madden, racer etc. gamers they've always been after, and probably hoping to score a casual gamer, nintendo fanboy etc. here and there.
Thus they are all three competing with each other, but PS3/360 are going after the SAME PIECE OF THE MARKET and thus are competing more directly with each other than they are with the Wii which is aiming at a DIFFERENT PIECE OF THE MARKET.
So they compete, just in varying DEGREES.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
If you can't see by now that our entire point is that it the Wii does not compete in the same way that the 360/PS3 do with each other...well I just don't know what to say. It's a shame. You don't have to agree with it, its just wierd to me that you can't seem to understand that nobody here is saying the Wii does not compete with the other consoles at all; just that (I liked the way Dmaul put it) the "...PS3/360 are going after the SAME PIECE OF THE MARKET and thus are competing more directly with each other than they are with the Wii which is aiming at a DIFFERENT PIECE OF THE MARKET." It competes in a different way, to a different degree. As I said before it is technically correct to say that everything competes with everything but this is not saying much.
Um.
Nintendo wants to sell to all of those "hardcore" people just as much as Sony and Microsoft do. You can argue all you want that they don't because they don't have Grand Theft Auto and Halo on their side, but they damn sure want as many people - casual, non-casual, family, old, young, schizophrenic, long-time, old skool, hardcore, software, hardhardcore, and every other adjective ALL INCLUSIVE - to buy their systems.
Saying that they don't is laughable.
Nintendo wants to sell to all of those "hardcore" people just as much as Sony and Microsoft do. You can argue all you want that they don't because they don't have Grand Theft Auto and Halo on their side, but they damn sure want as many people - casual, non-casual, family, old, young, schizophrenic, long-time, old skool, hardcore, software, hardhardcore, and every other adjective ALL INCLUSIVE - to buy their systems.
Saying that they don't is laughable.
MillerTime2523
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 119 (99%)
This Thread's popularity pisses me off!
thingsfallnapart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 72 (100%)
In my eyes, all Nintendo is doing is trying to introduce a new wave of people into the video game demographic by getting them to nibble with "non-game video games." instead of fighting tooth and nail for the dollars that already exist in the video game market arena, they are trying to bring in more money threw different marketing. It might work, it might not - what Nintendo is doing is throwing software like brain age and my language coach out there to see if these people eventually either want to get into the games or not. It's good for the initial sale - but can they keep these new market introductees in the game? We'll see.
[quote name='Strell']Um.
Nintendo wants to sell to all of those "hardcore" people just as much as Sony and Microsoft do. You can argue all you want that they don't because they don't have Grand Theft Auto and Halo on their side, but they damn sure want as many people - casual, non-casual, family, old, young, schizophrenic, long-time, old skool, hardcore, software, hardhardcore, and every other adjective ALL INCLUSIVE - to buy their systems.
Saying that they don't is laughable.[/QUOTE]
Oh they would like to have their business. They just not doing a damn thing to compete DIRECTLY with the PS3 and 360 among serious gamers--huge Nintendo fans aside.
Similarly, the PS3/360 aren't doing much of anything to compete directly with Nintendo in the casual/non-gamer market.
That's all I've been saying. In practicality the Wii and PS3/360 aren't competing as directly as the PS3/360 are with each other due to offering vastly different gaming options.
They'd no doubt all love to sell to hardcore gamers, semi serious gamers, casual gamers, non-gamers, people who like FPS, people who like brain age, etc. etc. etc. whatever lame title for a certain market of gamers can be called.
But the fact is that they have different game libraries that limit the DEGREE to which the CAN compete in certain markets.
Nintendo wants to sell to all of those "hardcore" people just as much as Sony and Microsoft do. You can argue all you want that they don't because they don't have Grand Theft Auto and Halo on their side, but they damn sure want as many people - casual, non-casual, family, old, young, schizophrenic, long-time, old skool, hardcore, software, hardhardcore, and every other adjective ALL INCLUSIVE - to buy their systems.
Saying that they don't is laughable.[/QUOTE]
Oh they would like to have their business. They just not doing a damn thing to compete DIRECTLY with the PS3 and 360 among serious gamers--huge Nintendo fans aside.
Similarly, the PS3/360 aren't doing much of anything to compete directly with Nintendo in the casual/non-gamer market.
That's all I've been saying. In practicality the Wii and PS3/360 aren't competing as directly as the PS3/360 are with each other due to offering vastly different gaming options.
They'd no doubt all love to sell to hardcore gamers, semi serious gamers, casual gamers, non-gamers, people who like FPS, people who like brain age, etc. etc. etc. whatever lame title for a certain market of gamers can be called.
But the fact is that they have different game libraries that limit the DEGREE to which the CAN compete in certain markets.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh they would like to have their business. They just not doing a damn thing to compete DIRECTLY with the PS3 and 360 among serious gamers--huge Nintendo fans aside.
Similarly, the PS3/360 aren't doing much of anything to compete directly with Nintendo in the casual/non-gamer market.
That's all I've been saying. In practicality the Wii and PS3/360 aren't competing as directly as the PS3/360 are with each other due to offering vastly different gaming options.
They'd no doubt all love to sell to hardcore gamers, semi serious gamers, casual gamers, non-gamers, people who like FPS, people who like brain age, etc. etc. etc. whatever lame title for a certain market of gamers can be called.
But the fact is that they have different game libraries that limit the DEGREE to which the CAN compete in certain markets.[/quote]
how are they not competing directly when theyre in the same market? lol
just because they arent targeting the same specific "groups"
doesnt mean anything, the wii is being sold left and right to all kinds of gamers.
Similarly, the PS3/360 aren't doing much of anything to compete directly with Nintendo in the casual/non-gamer market.
That's all I've been saying. In practicality the Wii and PS3/360 aren't competing as directly as the PS3/360 are with each other due to offering vastly different gaming options.
They'd no doubt all love to sell to hardcore gamers, semi serious gamers, casual gamers, non-gamers, people who like FPS, people who like brain age, etc. etc. etc. whatever lame title for a certain market of gamers can be called.
But the fact is that they have different game libraries that limit the DEGREE to which the CAN compete in certain markets.[/quote]
how are they not competing directly when theyre in the same market? lol
just because they arent targeting the same specific "groups"
doesnt mean anything, the wii is being sold left and right to all kinds of gamers.
crazytalkx
CAGiversary!
CAG continues its downward spiral into the hell known as "GameFAQs"
[quote name='Furashu']how are they not competing directly when theyre in the same market? lol
just because they arent targeting the same specific "groups"
doesnt mean anything, the wii is being sold left and right to all kinds of gamers.[/QUOTE]
It's the same example I've used all along.
If someone wants pick up and play, "wow I don't have to know which buttons to push" games, then the PS3 and 360 aren't really competing for that person's dollars very directly--at least not as their only/main console.
Similarly, if someone loves FPS, Racing, Online Gaming etc. etc. then the Wii isn't really competing for their dollars--at least not as their main/only consoles.
They offer different things, and for some the Wii or the PS3/360 are ruled out of the equation right at the outset because they don't offer the TYPE of gaming experience they want.
The the Wii or PS3/360 as a first/main console decision is made based on TYPE of games. Be it an informed decsion by someone who knows all the games available, or a decsion made simply after playing one or two games like Wii Sports or Halo and then buying that console.
Now the 360/PS3 decision has to be either total impulse, or a nuanced decsion based on the specific exclusive games as the TYPE of gaming offed by both is pretty much the same--just the standard console genres, online gaming etc. we've been getting.
Thus the 360/PS3 compete more directly as they are offering the SAME TYPE of gaming and TARGETING the SAME TYPE of gamers.
The Wii also competes with them, but LESS DIRECTLY as it offers a DIFFERENT TYPE of gaming and TARGETS a DIFFERENT TYPE of gamers with their marketing, game offerings etc.
Again, they all compete, but it's a matter of degree.
It's as simple as for someone who wants traditional games (beyond the Nitnendo franchises) the decision is PS3 or 360, the Wii shouldn't even be considered as that person's first/main console. And for those that want the pick up and play simple games, the Decision is just Wii (or DS I guess) and the 360/PS3 shouldn't even be considered as that person's first/main console.
That's all we mean by saying that it competes less directly.
Sony and MS are at each other's throat so to speak, as they are trying to sell pretty much the exact same shit to the exact same people, while Nintendo still goes after those people, but decided to think outside the box and focus on getting ahead by selling to a totally different degree of people. Again, they compete, but less directly given their new focus with marketing and game offerings thus far.
I'm not sure I can make it any more clear.
just because they arent targeting the same specific "groups"
doesnt mean anything, the wii is being sold left and right to all kinds of gamers.[/QUOTE]
It's the same example I've used all along.
If someone wants pick up and play, "wow I don't have to know which buttons to push" games, then the PS3 and 360 aren't really competing for that person's dollars very directly--at least not as their only/main console.
Similarly, if someone loves FPS, Racing, Online Gaming etc. etc. then the Wii isn't really competing for their dollars--at least not as their main/only consoles.
They offer different things, and for some the Wii or the PS3/360 are ruled out of the equation right at the outset because they don't offer the TYPE of gaming experience they want.
The the Wii or PS3/360 as a first/main console decision is made based on TYPE of games. Be it an informed decsion by someone who knows all the games available, or a decsion made simply after playing one or two games like Wii Sports or Halo and then buying that console.
Now the 360/PS3 decision has to be either total impulse, or a nuanced decsion based on the specific exclusive games as the TYPE of gaming offed by both is pretty much the same--just the standard console genres, online gaming etc. we've been getting.
Thus the 360/PS3 compete more directly as they are offering the SAME TYPE of gaming and TARGETING the SAME TYPE of gamers.
The Wii also competes with them, but LESS DIRECTLY as it offers a DIFFERENT TYPE of gaming and TARGETS a DIFFERENT TYPE of gamers with their marketing, game offerings etc.
Again, they all compete, but it's a matter of degree.
It's as simple as for someone who wants traditional games (beyond the Nitnendo franchises) the decision is PS3 or 360, the Wii shouldn't even be considered as that person's first/main console. And for those that want the pick up and play simple games, the Decision is just Wii (or DS I guess) and the 360/PS3 shouldn't even be considered as that person's first/main console.
That's all we mean by saying that it competes less directly.
Sony and MS are at each other's throat so to speak, as they are trying to sell pretty much the exact same shit to the exact same people, while Nintendo still goes after those people, but decided to think outside the box and focus on getting ahead by selling to a totally different degree of people. Again, they compete, but less directly given their new focus with marketing and game offerings thus far.
I'm not sure I can make it any more clear.
One more try at an analogy. 
A sports car and a mini-van are both vehicles. So to some degree they compete for consumers $$$.
But for the most part, they don't compete very directly as the typical person interested in a sports car isn't going to even take a look at a mini-van. And vice versa, the soccer mom interested in a mini-van isn't goint to even take a look at the sports car.
The Wii vs. PS3/360 are, IMO, a similar situation. The Wii is like the mini van. Uglier, cheaper and family friendly. While the PS3/360 are like the sports car, shiny, pretty, more expensive and the object of desire of the typical 15-25 year old male.
More simply the sports car and mini-van, while both vehicles, offer very different driving experiences and functions. While in the gaming realm, the Wii offers a very different gaming experience and functions than the PS3/360 despite also being a gaming machine.
Producuts in the SAME industy compete with each other to VARYING DEGREES as the same type of products can be very differnet from one another.
Just like apples and oranges are both fruit but are hugely different and some people love apples and hate oranges (like myself) and vice versa.
A sports car and a mini-van are both vehicles. So to some degree they compete for consumers $$$.
But for the most part, they don't compete very directly as the typical person interested in a sports car isn't going to even take a look at a mini-van. And vice versa, the soccer mom interested in a mini-van isn't goint to even take a look at the sports car.
The Wii vs. PS3/360 are, IMO, a similar situation. The Wii is like the mini van. Uglier, cheaper and family friendly. While the PS3/360 are like the sports car, shiny, pretty, more expensive and the object of desire of the typical 15-25 year old male.
More simply the sports car and mini-van, while both vehicles, offer very different driving experiences and functions. While in the gaming realm, the Wii offers a very different gaming experience and functions than the PS3/360 despite also being a gaming machine.
Producuts in the SAME industy compete with each other to VARYING DEGREES as the same type of products can be very differnet from one another.
Just like apples and oranges are both fruit but are hugely different and some people love apples and hate oranges (like myself) and vice versa.
MarioColbert
CAGiversary!
dmaul:
Where do you draw the line? So far, you've claimed that PS3 and 360 are somehow "more similar" to one another, while the Wii is not... I don't believe that to be true about PS3/360, and it's a fairly ignorant argument when concerning these systems. PS3, for example, is obviously going for the "technological connosieur" - with the newest, hottest, bestest hardware possible, which 360 can not begin to provide
That's a different market from XBOX360, which obviously goes for more of a college aged young FPS fratboy crowd... (For the record: I don't buy that for a second, by the way, the whole XBOX=FPS Fratboys bullshit).
I'm only asking - where do you draw the line in the analysis of the differences? You can't tell me that you don't feel that you're trivializing, stereotyping, and oversimplifying things a bit when you draw single-minded conclusions (such as sports car vs. a mini-van)? And last but not least, wouldn't that analogy imply that the PS3 must be the top sports car on the road, while the XBOX360 is a "seemingly unreliable" vehicle of decent power, but nothing special when compared to that PS3 car...
Apart from the price difference (which automatically makes your claims for "less competition" 100% true purely in an economic sense), which is slowly shrinking, the products compete for the very same consumer and that is - to end up in as many houses as possible, next to everyone's TV.
The reason why this "obvious" bit is important is because sport cars, as most luxury vehicles are by design not competing with mini-vans. PS3 and 360 are not luxury systems according to their creators, and are intended for an average consumer. If you disagree, I hope we can at least talk about why PS3/360 are "luxury" items while the Wii is not. At least it'd be more fun than the "YES!" "NO!" "YES!" "NO!" discussion that's been going for way too long all up ins.
And just to things up a little bit: I still like you, pittpizza, regardless if you think I'm a stupid troll. The same goes to dmaul, though you never called me names.
Where do you draw the line? So far, you've claimed that PS3 and 360 are somehow "more similar" to one another, while the Wii is not... I don't believe that to be true about PS3/360, and it's a fairly ignorant argument when concerning these systems. PS3, for example, is obviously going for the "technological connosieur" - with the newest, hottest, bestest hardware possible, which 360 can not begin to provide
That's a different market from XBOX360, which obviously goes for more of a college aged young FPS fratboy crowd... (For the record: I don't buy that for a second, by the way, the whole XBOX=FPS Fratboys bullshit).
I'm only asking - where do you draw the line in the analysis of the differences? You can't tell me that you don't feel that you're trivializing, stereotyping, and oversimplifying things a bit when you draw single-minded conclusions (such as sports car vs. a mini-van)? And last but not least, wouldn't that analogy imply that the PS3 must be the top sports car on the road, while the XBOX360 is a "seemingly unreliable" vehicle of decent power, but nothing special when compared to that PS3 car...
Apart from the price difference (which automatically makes your claims for "less competition" 100% true purely in an economic sense), which is slowly shrinking, the products compete for the very same consumer and that is - to end up in as many houses as possible, next to everyone's TV.
The reason why this "obvious" bit is important is because sport cars, as most luxury vehicles are by design not competing with mini-vans. PS3 and 360 are not luxury systems according to their creators, and are intended for an average consumer. If you disagree, I hope we can at least talk about why PS3/360 are "luxury" items while the Wii is not. At least it'd be more fun than the "YES!" "NO!" "YES!" "NO!" discussion that's been going for way too long all up ins.
And just to
things up a little bit: I still like you, pittpizza, regardless if you think I'm a stupid troll. The same goes to dmaul, though you never called me names.Oh, the PS3 and 360 are definitely still different. They are just more similar to each other than the are the Wii in terms of TYPES OF GAMES offered.
If you want to play good FPS games, sports, racing, fighting games, do online gaming etc. you can buy EITHER a PS3 or a 360 and be happy with the game selection.
If you buy a Wii you'll be pretty much miserable.
And buy the same token if one wants a bunch of pick up and play games, simple games where they don't need to learn a lot of buttons etc. the Wii will fiill that need and they'd be pretty much miserable with a PS3 or 360.
So again, the PS3/360 OR Wii decision can be made on types of games alone.
Trying to decide between the PS3 and 360, types of ganes doesn't help much, and one has to look at specific titles, whether they want a blue ray player, which online service they prefer etc. etc.
So in that sense they compete more directly than they do with the Wii.
Price is a bit of a moot point now. PS3 is only $50 more now so that doesn't matter much, especially if one factors free online vs. $50 a year for live.
And also, the PS3/360 hardware is more similar to each other than to the Wii. Both are HD, both have real next gen graphics etc. etc.
So I really don't see how anyone can make a reasonable argument that the PS3 and 360 aren't more similar to each other than the are to the Wii. They're clearly much more similar both in hardware features and genres of games supported in their libraries.
They still have important differences, but they are more specific things like blue ray, different titles exclusive etc. rather than broad things like "real" games vs. casual gamers + nintendo titles, HD vs. non-HD etc. etc.
As for the sports car analogy. Maybe I should have went with Sedan (something like a Mazda 6) vs Minivan. But my main point was just because products are in the same area that doesn't mean they all compete directly with each other. Large groups will only consider one or the other, thus they can be dealing with largely separate markets with some overlap. While others go for pretty much the same market and fight tooth and nail for the same peoples $$$.
As for the luxury items. The PS3/360 are not luxury items. Their game consoles aimed primarly at GAMERS. The Wii is a console aimed at Nintendo fans, casual gamers and non-gamers. Both are marketed clearly at such groups, such groups are distinct with some overlap, and that's why the Wii competes less directly than do the PS3/360 which appeals to, and is marketed to, the core gamer group.
Sorry this post is rambly and back and forth, but I'ming tired and off to bed!
If you want to play good FPS games, sports, racing, fighting games, do online gaming etc. you can buy EITHER a PS3 or a 360 and be happy with the game selection.
If you buy a Wii you'll be pretty much miserable.
And buy the same token if one wants a bunch of pick up and play games, simple games where they don't need to learn a lot of buttons etc. the Wii will fiill that need and they'd be pretty much miserable with a PS3 or 360.
So again, the PS3/360 OR Wii decision can be made on types of games alone.
Trying to decide between the PS3 and 360, types of ganes doesn't help much, and one has to look at specific titles, whether they want a blue ray player, which online service they prefer etc. etc.
So in that sense they compete more directly than they do with the Wii.
Price is a bit of a moot point now. PS3 is only $50 more now so that doesn't matter much, especially if one factors free online vs. $50 a year for live.
And also, the PS3/360 hardware is more similar to each other than to the Wii. Both are HD, both have real next gen graphics etc. etc.
So I really don't see how anyone can make a reasonable argument that the PS3 and 360 aren't more similar to each other than the are to the Wii. They're clearly much more similar both in hardware features and genres of games supported in their libraries.
They still have important differences, but they are more specific things like blue ray, different titles exclusive etc. rather than broad things like "real" games vs. casual gamers + nintendo titles, HD vs. non-HD etc. etc.
As for the sports car analogy. Maybe I should have went with Sedan (something like a Mazda 6) vs Minivan.
But my main point was just because products are in the same area that doesn't mean they all compete directly with each other. Large groups will only consider one or the other, thus they can be dealing with largely separate markets with some overlap. While others go for pretty much the same market and fight tooth and nail for the same peoples $$$.As for the luxury items. The PS3/360 are not luxury items. Their game consoles aimed primarly at GAMERS. The Wii is a console aimed at Nintendo fans, casual gamers and non-gamers. Both are marketed clearly at such groups, such groups are distinct with some overlap, and that's why the Wii competes less directly than do the PS3/360 which appeals to, and is marketed to, the core gamer group.
Sorry this post is rambly and back and forth, but I'm
ing tired and off to bed!Stereotyping the first year of games on the Wii - which were full of great, "hardcore" first party offerings - to the point where you assume all games will be "casual" is a really weak argument at best.
And again, I don't care what you say, but Sony and Microsoft are trying desperately to appeal to casual audiences.
Also, while I can understand the power differences as being leveraged between the systems, the architecture of the PS3 and 360 are anything but comparable.
And again, I don't care what you say, but Sony and Microsoft are trying desperately to appeal to casual audiences.
Also, while I can understand the power differences as being leveraged between the systems, the architecture of the PS3 and 360 are anything but comparable.
[quote name='Strell']Stereotyping the first year of games on the Wii - which were full of great, "hardcore" first party offerings - to the point where you assume all games will be "casual" is a really weak argument at best.[/quote]
It could change, and then we'll be having a different conversation in a year or two down the line. Just talking current gen to this point now. And I'd hardly call 3 big games (mario, zelda, metroid--rest titles are niche at best) a strong offering.
[quote name='Strell']
And again, I don't care what you say, but Sony and Microsoft are trying desperately to appeal to casual audiences. [/quote]
Read my post again. I clearly said that I'm sure Sony and MS are trying/wanting to compete in that market. They just aren't as they suck in that regard. So in a practical sense they are competing in that market, just like Nintendo isn't in the hardcore (non-nintendo diehard) gamer market yet.
[quote name='Strell']
Also, while I can understand the power differences as being leveraged between the systems, the architecture of the PS3 and 360 are anything but comparable.[/QUOTE]
Don't care about that tech nerd shit. The games are in HD. The Wii games aren't. Games on PS3 and 360 look pretty much indistinguishable.
Thus they are much more similar to each other, than they are to the Gamecube with waggle. And that's all that's been said. They of course still have their important differences in architecture and features. And that's why they compete more directly--it's the small details that get sales, rather than broad things like graphics capabilities and types of games offered.
It could change, and then we'll be having a different conversation in a year or two down the line. Just talking current gen to this point now. And I'd hardly call 3 big games (mario, zelda, metroid--rest titles are niche at best) a strong offering.
[quote name='Strell']
And again, I don't care what you say, but Sony and Microsoft are trying desperately to appeal to casual audiences. [/quote]
Read my post again. I clearly said that I'm sure Sony and MS are trying/wanting to compete in that market. They just aren't as they suck in that regard. So in a practical sense they are competing in that market, just like Nintendo isn't in the hardcore (non-nintendo diehard) gamer market yet.
[quote name='Strell']
Also, while I can understand the power differences as being leveraged between the systems, the architecture of the PS3 and 360 are anything but comparable.[/QUOTE]
Don't care about that tech nerd shit. The games are in HD. The Wii games aren't. Games on PS3 and 360 look pretty much indistinguishable.
Thus they are much more similar to each other, than they are to the Gamecube with waggle. And that's all that's been said. They of course still have their important differences in architecture and features. And that's why they compete more directly--it's the small details that get sales, rather than broad things like graphics capabilities and types of games offered.
The point I was making that you're not getting right now is that a lot of your words are incorrect in terms of description. So it's really more of a syntax thing than anything else.
For example, dismissing "tech nerd shit" as something to not care about, when you call the architectures comparable. That's like calling a moped and a motorcycle going the same speed comparable. You want to say the end results are comparable? Fine. But don't act like the foundation they stand on isn't worth considering.
Also, calling all but Mario/Zelda/Metroid game "niche" titles is at best a hopeless frailty. Just because you don't care about them doesn't mean they are niche, and just because they don't fall into the realm of "hardcore" games doesn't classify them as niche either. Obviously something like Zack and Wiki is niche, but Fire Emblem, Strikers Charged, Battallion Wars, and some of the other titles aren't. Again, you're looking at this purely from your own informed opinion and passing it all over the industry as a whole, when in reality, the "hardcore" sector of the entire audience is shrinking by the day.
For example, dismissing "tech nerd shit" as something to not care about, when you call the architectures comparable. That's like calling a moped and a motorcycle going the same speed comparable. You want to say the end results are comparable? Fine. But don't act like the foundation they stand on isn't worth considering.
Also, calling all but Mario/Zelda/Metroid game "niche" titles is at best a hopeless frailty. Just because you don't care about them doesn't mean they are niche, and just because they don't fall into the realm of "hardcore" games doesn't classify them as niche either. Obviously something like Zack and Wiki is niche, but Fire Emblem, Strikers Charged, Battallion Wars, and some of the other titles aren't. Again, you're looking at this purely from your own informed opinion and passing it all over the industry as a whole, when in reality, the "hardcore" sector of the entire audience is shrinking by the day.
1. I didn't say the architectures were comparable. I said that both offer next gen graphics and HD graphics--which the Wii does not. Thus they are more similar. The architecture still has differences, just not as gigantic as the difference between them and the wii.
2. The sales for the other titles make them Niche. Maybe not strikers. But Fire Emblem probably won't sell much better in the US than Zak and Wiki. Strategy RPGS don't do all that well here--it's a niche genre.
In any case, those aren't big Million seller games in any case, maybe some should be called somethign other than niche--but mainly I just meant they aren't games that sell systems or really even factor in to the buying equation very often. And more I was just getting that they aren't games that the maisntream PS3/360 gamer is going to give a shit about--which gets to the not competing as directly point again.
2. The sales for the other titles make them Niche. Maybe not strikers. But Fire Emblem probably won't sell much better in the US than Zak and Wiki. Strategy RPGS don't do all that well here--it's a niche genre.
In any case, those aren't big Million seller games in any case, maybe some should be called somethign other than niche--but mainly I just meant they aren't games that sell systems or really even factor in to the buying equation very often. And more I was just getting that they aren't games that the maisntream PS3/360 gamer is going to give a shit about--which gets to the not competing as directly point again.
Sales do not define a title as niche. Ever.
Now, maybe I could understand niche titles never selling well, but that's an A implies B, but B doesn't imply A situation.
So it only works one way. But even a niche title can grow and sell strongly, such as Katamari Damacy, which was as niche as you could get when it was released.
Examples of titles that are not niche but don't sell well are, of course, some of the unsung heroes of the industry, such as Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil. They didn't sell very well, but they are by and large games that carry established genres. Having high critical acclaim helps in some tiny regard. Also, Psychonauts was at least better received over in the UK.
Now, maybe I could understand niche titles never selling well, but that's an A implies B, but B doesn't imply A situation.
So it only works one way. But even a niche title can grow and sell strongly, such as Katamari Damacy, which was as niche as you could get when it was released.
Examples of titles that are not niche but don't sell well are, of course, some of the unsung heroes of the industry, such as Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil. They didn't sell very well, but they are by and large games that carry established genres. Having high critical acclaim helps in some tiny regard. Also, Psychonauts was at least better received over in the UK.
Wii is friggin' popular b/c it can cater to all age groups.
That, and the obvious fact that it is the cheapest of the current consoles, only has one model, and doesn't require anything extravagant to "fully experience" the capabilities of the console.
It's just less of a headache and is more "child-friendly" also
All these long-winded posts encouraged me to type up more than two sentences :/
That, and the obvious fact that it is the cheapest of the current consoles, only has one model, and doesn't require anything extravagant to "fully experience" the capabilities of the console.
It's just less of a headache and is more "child-friendly" also
All these long-winded posts encouraged me to type up more than two sentences :/
Strell,dmaul is correct in one thing regardless of architecture the 360 and PS3 offer a similar experience in quality of graphics and selection of titles. What your really looking at between those two is the exclusives out/scheduled between the two. With Nintendo your looking at a lot more differences weaker graphical processing power and a radically different control scheme as well as the systems own exclusives.
This is what makes it appeal to more people in my mind the fact it has less processing power allows it to stay cheaper making it a more accessable entry point into this gens gaming than most the other systems. The fact it only has one SKU on the market also helps as people don't get as confused on "which version" of the system to buy. The only time anything gets annoying with this console is if you want to use the VC or if games allow multiple control types then you need a classic controler and a gamecube controler to get all your options which is an extra expense(I really wish Nintendo had found another way of doing this it feels very apple like the way they nickel and dime you this way).
The other thing is Nintendos rep as a "family" system and the way they've successfully promoted the system as a "group" experience has helped them promote the system. Including a more group oriented game solidified this image in peoples minds. All this helped the Nintendo seem like something more "trendy" and "hip" to own which has been great for Nintendo since its moving systems again it looks like another thing learned from apple almost.
As far as exclusives go this is a no brainer its NINTENDO if you liked their games in the past chances are 99% your going to like them now and you "will" see them on their console so many of the "gamer" crowd will pick up the Wii as a secondary console if nothing else just to play those games and 3rd party games like Zack and Wiki that are designed with its unique control scheme in mind. Where as a lot of the gamer crowd may skip a PS3 or a 360 due to the fact that they will get a "majority" of the titles available on the system they didn't chose on the one they "did" decide to pick up leaving them missing a handful of exclusives which they likely would have liked to play but not enough for another 400 dollar + investment.
P.S. Sorry for the excessively long post :/.
This is what makes it appeal to more people in my mind the fact it has less processing power allows it to stay cheaper making it a more accessable entry point into this gens gaming than most the other systems. The fact it only has one SKU on the market also helps as people don't get as confused on "which version" of the system to buy. The only time anything gets annoying with this console is if you want to use the VC or if games allow multiple control types then you need a classic controler and a gamecube controler to get all your options which is an extra expense(I really wish Nintendo had found another way of doing this it feels very apple like the way they nickel and dime you this way).
The other thing is Nintendos rep as a "family" system and the way they've successfully promoted the system as a "group" experience has helped them promote the system. Including a more group oriented game solidified this image in peoples minds. All this helped the Nintendo seem like something more "trendy" and "hip" to own which has been great for Nintendo since its moving systems again it looks like another thing learned from apple almost.
As far as exclusives go this is a no brainer its NINTENDO if you liked their games in the past chances are 99% your going to like them now and you "will" see them on their console so many of the "gamer" crowd will pick up the Wii as a secondary console if nothing else just to play those games and 3rd party games like Zack and Wiki that are designed with its unique control scheme in mind. Where as a lot of the gamer crowd may skip a PS3 or a 360 due to the fact that they will get a "majority" of the titles available on the system they didn't chose on the one they "did" decide to pick up leaving them missing a handful of exclusives which they likely would have liked to play but not enough for another 400 dollar + investment.
P.S. Sorry for the excessively long post :/.
Exactly. No one is saying the PS3/360 are exactly the same, nor that the Wii is totally different. They are all video game machines, so they all have things in common. And it's clear the PS3/360 are more similar to each other in terms of graphics, pricing and game types that are most prominent in their library than they are to the Wii. The PS3/360 still have a lot of differences, but they are smaller things such as architecture, blu ray capacity, the specific exclusvie franchises (rather than types of games).
I think part of the issue is Strell seems to think that what I'm saying only applies to informed hardcore gamers, and that's just not the case.
For consoles to compete DIRECTLY (or you could say EQUALLY) that would have to mean that pretty much every potential consumer considered ALL THREE options, weighed the pros and cons of each and made a decision about what to buy as their first/main console.
That's just going to happen very rarely, and be limited to the hardcore that put a lot of thought into what to buy first if they can afford to get them all right away.
Otherwise, people are going to most often just buy one console without considerting the others. Whether it's due to brand familiarity (i.e. they had a PS1 and PS2), an impulse buy that comes after playing Wii Sports, Halo or whatever big title on said consoles.
Or it's going to get narrowed down by thet types of games one wants to play, whether they want top notch graphics or not, their price range and things of that nature. This is where the Wii vs. Ps3/360 decision gets made. One doesn't have to look at the specific titles and other nuances. All they need to know is whether they want Nintendo games and/or casual gamers or if they want the same type of traditional gaming experiences they got on the PS1, PS2, X-box etc. Thus it competes less DIRECTLY as the Wii gets kicked out of the equation early on, or decided to buy early on, just buy glancing at types of games price etc among those who don't buy out of brand loyalty or impulse after playing one game.
The thing that baffles me over this debate is that NINTENDO THEMSELVES explicity SET OUT to compete LESS DIRECTLY with Sony and MS than last generation by going after a different market with most of their efforts. And they've had aing huge success by competeing less directly and selling the Wii to people who would never consider buying a 360 or PS3 along with their niche of Nintendo supporters who stuck with them through the N64 and GC.
It's not like competing less directly is a bad thing. It's a good thing for them. They're in first place, and making record profits with a console that sells out as soon as it hits store shelves a year after launch. We should be applauding them for competing less directly and for realizing that they just weren't a company that could win in the FPS, blood and gore, T&A hard core gamer male 12-25 age group. They're doing what they do best, and they've turned their fortunes around because of it.
Will it be good for us hardcore gamers that aren't thrilled with the casual gaming stuff? Time will tell. But if not, no skin off our noses as MS and Sony have awesome products for us out there, that at least for me have far more games that interest me than I have time for. So Nintendo can do what's best for them (and they are) and if that doesn't end up working for me I can say adios with no regrets.
I think part of the issue is Strell seems to think that what I'm saying only applies to informed hardcore gamers, and that's just not the case.
For consoles to compete DIRECTLY (or you could say EQUALLY) that would have to mean that pretty much every potential consumer considered ALL THREE options, weighed the pros and cons of each and made a decision about what to buy as their first/main console.
That's just going to happen very rarely, and be limited to the hardcore that put a lot of thought into what to buy first if they can afford to get them all right away.
Otherwise, people are going to most often just buy one console without considerting the others. Whether it's due to brand familiarity (i.e. they had a PS1 and PS2), an impulse buy that comes after playing Wii Sports, Halo or whatever big title on said consoles.
Or it's going to get narrowed down by thet types of games one wants to play, whether they want top notch graphics or not, their price range and things of that nature. This is where the Wii vs. Ps3/360 decision gets made. One doesn't have to look at the specific titles and other nuances. All they need to know is whether they want Nintendo games and/or casual gamers or if they want the same type of traditional gaming experiences they got on the PS1, PS2, X-box etc. Thus it competes less DIRECTLY as the Wii gets kicked out of the equation early on, or decided to buy early on, just buy glancing at types of games price etc among those who don't buy out of brand loyalty or impulse after playing one game.
The thing that baffles me over this debate is that NINTENDO THEMSELVES explicity SET OUT to compete LESS DIRECTLY with Sony and MS than last generation by going after a different market with most of their efforts. And they've had a
ing huge success by competeing less directly and selling the Wii to people who would never consider buying a 360 or PS3 along with their niche of Nintendo supporters who stuck with them through the N64 and GC.It's not like competing less directly is a bad thing. It's a good thing for them. They're in first place, and making record profits with a console that sells out as soon as it hits store shelves a year after launch. We should be applauding them for competing less directly and for realizing that they just weren't a company that could win in the FPS, blood and gore, T&A hard core gamer male 12-25 age group. They're doing what they do best, and they've turned their fortunes around because of it.
Will it be good for us hardcore gamers that aren't thrilled with the casual gaming stuff? Time will tell. But if not, no skin off our noses as MS and Sony have awesome products for us out there, that at least for me have far more games that interest me than I have time for. So Nintendo can do what's best for them (and they are) and if that doesn't end up working for me I can say adios with no regrets.
itachiitachi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']Oh they would like to have their business. They just not doing a damn thing to compete DIRECTLY with the PS3 and 360 among serious gamers--huge Nintendo fans aside.
[/quote]
I'm sure manhunt, resident evil, no more heros, what ever the have worked out with square, ect... are all atempts to get more soccer moms.
[/quote]
I'm sure manhunt, resident evil, no more heros, what ever the have worked out with square, ect... are all atempts to get more soccer moms.
pittpizza
CAGiversary!
I think by now nay-sayers have got to realize that we are not sayign the Wii does not compete in any way whatsoever with the 360/PS3 right? Lemme know if you've caught on to our original point yet, which is (one more time) that the Wii just competes less directly with the 360 and PS3 than they do with each other. Dmaul and I have said that the differences in power is only one factor of many that contributes to this divergence in competetitoin, other, perhaps even more important differences include price, games, simplicty/complexity, graphics, etc...
MarioColbert...my posts probably would have been better if I had not said that some were being trolls or dumb, so forgive me for my momentary lapse in judgment. That being said, I seriously don't know how what we've been saying could be so misunderstood and misinterpreted from "Wii competes in a different way" to "The Wii doesn't compete at all" unless one was being a troll or one was fairly unintelligent and easily confused.
Attempts to debunk our point by alluding to a dichotomy in the shopping practices of "hardcore" (
MarioColbert...my posts probably would have been better if I had not said that some were being trolls or dumb, so forgive me for my momentary lapse in judgment. That being said, I seriously don't know how what we've been saying could be so misunderstood and misinterpreted from "Wii competes in a different way" to "The Wii doesn't compete at all" unless one was being a troll or one was fairly unintelligent and easily confused.
Attempts to debunk our point by alluding to a dichotomy in the shopping practices of "hardcore" (
Jesus Christ people. Alright, I will admit I do not have a PS3 or 360. However, I think that I know a fair enough about them. If any of my statements are wrong (and at least one is bound to be), that does not change the rest of my argument here. Also, this obviously doesn't reflect everything.
Reasons the Wii is more different than the 360 and PS3 are different from eachother:
Hardware-
The Wii has aing motion controller.
The Wii does not offer HD gameplay.
The Wii can not be used as either a HDDVD or BluRay player.
The Wii has a shit ton more gimmicky add ons for its controllers.
The physical appearance of the Wii is much different - it is much smaller than the other two.
Software-
The Wii offers Nintendo franchises such as Mario/Zelda/Metroid.
The Wii does not have as robust of an online system.
The Wii has channels that offer things like weather updates, news, and various other thing.
Miis
Again, jesus Christ people, THE GOD DAMNED CONTROLLER MAKES THE WII MORE DIFFERENT FROM THE PS3 AND 360 THAN THEY ARE FROM EACHOTHER. I DONT SEE WHY MORE THAN THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID. THE 360 AND PS3 ARE PRETTY MUCH TRADITIONALING CONSOLES WITH ING REGULAR CONTROLLERS. THEY HAVE ADVANCED GRAPHICALLY AND AS WELL AS IN A FEW OTHER AREAS. THE WII INSTEAD OF ADVANCING AS MUCH WITH POWER AND GRAPHICS DECIDED TO CHANGE THE ING INDUSTRY. THEY ARE CHANGING THE FACE OF THE ING VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY BECAUSE OF HOW GOD DAMNED DIFFERENT THEY DECIDED TO MAKE THEIR SYSTEM FROM THE PS3 AND 360. YES THEY STILL COMPETE WITH THEM BUT IF YOU CANT SEE THAT THE WII IS NOT AS CLOSE OF A SUBSTITUTE FOR A 360 AS A PS3 IS THAN I DONT KNOW WHAT THE TO SAY. IT DOESNT MATTER WHO THE THEY ARE TRYING TO TARGET. LOOK AT THE ING PRODUCTS. ONE HAS A ING STICK THAT YOU SHAKE AROUND. THE OTHER TWO HAVE ING NORMAL CONTROLLERS WITH BUTTONS AND SHIT. ONE HAS SD GRAPHICS. THE OTHER TWO HAVE HD GRAPHICS. ONE IS SMALL AND WHITE AND LOOKS LIKE AN OVERWEIGHT IPOD. THE OTHER TWO ARE A LOT ING BIGGER AND LOOK MORE LIKE DVD PLAYERS ON ROIDS. ONE OF THEM SHARES PLENTY OF GAMES WITH A PREVIOUS GENERATION CONSOLE. THE OTHER TWO OFTEN GET PORTS OF EACHOTHERS GAMES.
Reasons the Wii is more different than the 360 and PS3 are different from eachother:
Hardware-
The Wii has a
ing motion controller.The Wii does not offer HD gameplay.
The Wii can not be used as either a HDDVD or BluRay player.
The Wii has a shit ton more gimmicky add ons for its controllers.
The physical appearance of the Wii is much different - it is much smaller than the other two.
Software-
The Wii offers Nintendo franchises such as Mario/Zelda/Metroid.
The Wii does not have as robust of an online system.
The Wii has channels that offer things like weather updates, news, and various other thing.
Miis
Again, jesus Christ people, THE GOD DAMNED CONTROLLER MAKES THE WII MORE DIFFERENT FROM THE PS3 AND 360 THAN THEY ARE FROM EACHOTHER. I DONT SEE WHY MORE THAN THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID. THE 360 AND PS3 ARE PRETTY MUCH TRADITIONAL
ING CONSOLES WITH ING REGULAR CONTROLLERS. THEY HAVE ADVANCED GRAPHICALLY AND AS WELL AS IN A FEW OTHER AREAS. THE WII INSTEAD OF ADVANCING AS MUCH WITH POWER AND GRAPHICS DECIDED TO CHANGE THE ING INDUSTRY. THEY ARE CHANGING THE FACE OF THE ING VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY BECAUSE OF HOW GOD DAMNED DIFFERENT THEY DECIDED TO MAKE THEIR SYSTEM FROM THE PS3 AND 360. YES THEY STILL COMPETE WITH THEM BUT IF YOU CANT SEE THAT THE WII IS NOT AS CLOSE OF A SUBSTITUTE FOR A 360 AS A PS3 IS THAN I DONT KNOW WHAT THE TO SAY. IT DOESNT MATTER WHO THE THEY ARE TRYING TO TARGET. LOOK AT THE ING PRODUCTS. ONE HAS A ING STICK THAT YOU SHAKE AROUND. THE OTHER TWO HAVE ING NORMAL CONTROLLERS WITH BUTTONS AND SHIT. ONE HAS SD GRAPHICS. THE OTHER TWO HAVE HD GRAPHICS. ONE IS SMALL AND WHITE AND LOOKS LIKE AN OVERWEIGHT IPOD. THE OTHER TWO ARE A LOT ING BIGGER AND LOOK MORE LIKE DVD PLAYERS ON ROIDS. ONE OF THEM SHARES PLENTY OF GAMES WITH A PREVIOUS GENERATION CONSOLE. THE OTHER TWO OFTEN GET PORTS OF EACHOTHERS GAMES.[quote name='itachiitachi']I'm sure manhunt, resident evil, no more heros, what ever the have worked out with square, ect... are all atempts to get more soccer moms.[/QUOTE]
As I clearly said the are ATTEMPTING to compete with MS and Sony for core gamer to some extent. And such games are examples. They're just few and far between (and that includeds one shitty reviewed game in Manhunt, a port in RE4, a lightgun time game in RE:UC and wait and see on NMH given how much Killer 7 sucked).
They're just competing LESS DIRECTLY since those aren't first party games, Nintendo isn't hyping them much, and there aren't very many of them thus far. Where as the PS3/360 are absolutely full of those types of games aimed at core gamers, and don't have much for the soccer moms and casual gamers.
I really don't see how it's hard to grasp. Maybe it's just denial from people who thinks that saying that Nintendo competes less directly with Sony and MS than they do with each other is a slam on Nintendo.
As I said, it's not. That was their goal and it's paid off tenfold for them already as they've raced to first place precisely by not trying to go head to head with Sony and MS over core gamers.
As I clearly said the are ATTEMPTING to compete with MS and Sony for core gamer to some extent. And such games are examples. They're just few and far between (and that includeds one shitty reviewed game in Manhunt, a port in RE4, a lightgun time game in RE:UC and wait and see on NMH given how much Killer 7 sucked).
They're just competing LESS DIRECTLY since those aren't first party games, Nintendo isn't hyping them much, and there aren't very many of them thus far. Where as the PS3/360 are absolutely full of those types of games aimed at core gamers, and don't have much for the soccer moms and casual gamers.
I really don't see how it's hard to grasp. Maybe it's just denial from people who thinks that saying that Nintendo competes less directly with Sony and MS than they do with each other is a slam on Nintendo.
As I said, it's not. That was their goal and it's paid off tenfold for them already as they've raced to first place precisely by not trying to go head to head with Sony and MS over core gamers.
^ exactly.
[quote name='itachiitachi']I'm sure manhunt, resident evil, no more heros, what ever the have worked out with square, ect... are all atempts to get more soccer moms.[/QUOTE]
It surely has nothing to do with the Wii having the largest install base or a company wanting to milk a game even further (RE4) by adding waggle.
Also forget that Ubisoft has been huge on the Wii and their latest game, No More Heroes is by Suda 51 who suppported the Gamecube and is a game featuring a lightsaber. What console would you expect it to go to?
Manhunt 2? Sure Nintendo went to Rockstar for something/anything, and I'm sure killing with motion sounded quite intriguing, not to mention the whole install base thing.
Square-Enix? Nintendo's been chasing them since the N64. Nothing new there.
The examples given have little to do with "competing" and all to do with choosing the right platform for maximum sales.
[quote name='itachiitachi']I'm sure manhunt, resident evil, no more heros, what ever the have worked out with square, ect... are all atempts to get more soccer moms.[/QUOTE]
It surely has nothing to do with the Wii having the largest install base or a company wanting to milk a game even further (RE4) by adding waggle.
Also forget that Ubisoft has been huge on the Wii and their latest game, No More Heroes is by Suda 51 who suppported the Gamecube and is a game featuring a lightsaber. What console would you expect it to go to?
Manhunt 2? Sure Nintendo went to Rockstar for something/anything, and I'm sure killing with motion sounded quite intriguing, not to mention the whole install base thing.
Square-Enix? Nintendo's been chasing them since the N64. Nothing new there.
The examples given have little to do with "competing" and all to do with choosing the right platform for maximum sales.
itachiitachi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='pittpizza']0 do with each other. It's also transparent, well to me at least.
As mentioned before RE:4 (hellofagame btw) is a cube game, not really a Wii orign. GENERALLY SPEAKING Ppl who enjoy games like manhunt are not going to buy a Wii, they're more into 360/PS3, thereby supporting our agument even further. As to No More Heroes, is that even out yet? [/quote]
I donsen't matter if it is not originaly a Wii game if it the wii version sell 1,000,000 copies, infact that make it more impressive(probably counterd out by it only costing $30).
That fact that nintendo is the only company that got manhunt on their next gen system shows they are competeing. What are the sales numbers on this even? I remember other than that boost from being blamed for a murder it the first one didn't do so good.
Does it matter if no more heors is out yet? The point is its a wii exculsive that will appeal to gamers and if is any good will sell well. We can use Red Steel insteed a Game with good marketing that appeals to "hard core gamers" and even though it was a bad game it still sold over 1,000,000.
the point is the wii probably has asbout as many causual gamers as ps3 and 360 have halo/madden/gta/FF nerds. And probaly have about equal share of true gamers.
As mentioned before RE:4 (hellofagame btw) is a cube game, not really a Wii orign. GENERALLY SPEAKING Ppl who enjoy games like manhunt are not going to buy a Wii, they're more into 360/PS3, thereby supporting our agument even further. As to No More Heroes, is that even out yet? [/quote]
I donsen't matter if it is not originaly a Wii game if it the wii version sell 1,000,000 copies, infact that make it more impressive(probably counterd out by it only costing $30).
That fact that nintendo is the only company that got manhunt on their next gen system shows they are competeing. What are the sales numbers on this even? I remember other than that boost from being blamed for a murder it the first one didn't do so good.
Does it matter if no more heors is out yet? The point is its a wii exculsive that will appeal to gamers and if is any good will sell well. We can use Red Steel insteed a Game with good marketing that appeals to "hard core gamers" and even though it was a bad game it still sold over 1,000,000.
the point is the wii probably has asbout as many causual gamers as ps3 and 360 have halo/madden/gta/FF nerds. And probaly have about equal share of true gamers.
itachiitachi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Corvin']^ exactly.
It surely has nothing to do with the Wii having the largest install base or a company wanting to milk a game even further (RE4) by adding waggle.
Also forget that Ubisoft has been huge on the Wii and their latest game, No More Heroes is by Suda 51 who suppported the Gamecube and is a game featuring a lightsaber. What console would you expect it to go to?
Manhunt 2? Sure Nintendo went to Rockstar for something/anything, and I'm sure killing with motion sounded quite intriguing, not to mention the whole install base thing.
Square-Enix? Nintendo's been chasing them since the N64. Nothing new there.
The examples given have little to do with "competing" and all to do with choosing the right platform for maximum sales.[/quote]
The point is he said the nitendo is not doing much to compete, The fact the nitendo is getting exclusives games from these companies and even a game like manhunt(I don't think the would have been so eager to have this game last gen) show they are infact are.
It surely has nothing to do with the Wii having the largest install base or a company wanting to milk a game even further (RE4) by adding waggle.
Also forget that Ubisoft has been huge on the Wii and their latest game, No More Heroes is by Suda 51 who suppported the Gamecube and is a game featuring a lightsaber. What console would you expect it to go to?
Manhunt 2? Sure Nintendo went to Rockstar for something/anything, and I'm sure killing with motion sounded quite intriguing, not to mention the whole install base thing.
Square-Enix? Nintendo's been chasing them since the N64. Nothing new there.
The examples given have little to do with "competing" and all to do with choosing the right platform for maximum sales.[/quote]
The point is he said the nitendo is not doing much to compete, The fact the nitendo is getting exclusives games from these companies and even a game like manhunt(I don't think the would have been so eager to have this game last gen) show they are infact are.
[quote name='itachiitachi']
That fact that nintendo is the only company that got manhunt on their next gen system shows they are competeing. [/QUOTE]
Dude, like we've said a thousanding times (including two posts above)...we never said they aren't trying to compete.
Just that they're doing it less directly and less successfully. They're throwing the core gamers shit games like Manhunt, and ports of a good game that was on two last gen consoles, and niche titles like Zak and Wiki and probably No More Heros (given that Killer 7 was a niche title).
While the PS3/360 has AAA new games like Bioshock, Ratchet and Clank, Orange Box, Halo, Oblivion, Mass Effect, Uncharted, etc. ad nauseum that air aimed squarely at the core, traditional gamer.
Clearly they are totally focused on that market, and throw an occausional bone to the casuals with a party game, music gamer etc.
While Nintendo is focused on keeping their core of fanboys with their titles, bringing in non-gamers with Wii Sports and other motion control, simple pick up and play games, and throwing the occasional bone to the core gamer with some traditional games.
Thus they are all competing, but the PS3/360 more directly since they are throwing most of their effort into tradtional games aimed at the core gamer, while Nintendo is expending most effort on Nintendo fans and casual/non-gamers. Thus Nintendo competes LESS DIRECTLY.
That fact that nintendo is the only company that got manhunt on their next gen system shows they are competeing. [/QUOTE]
Dude, like we've said a thousand
ing times (including two posts above)...we never said they aren't trying to compete.Just that they're doing it less directly and less successfully. They're throwing the core gamers shit games like Manhunt, and ports of a good game that was on two last gen consoles, and niche titles like Zak and Wiki and probably No More Heros (given that Killer 7 was a niche title).
While the PS3/360 has AAA new games like Bioshock, Ratchet and Clank, Orange Box, Halo, Oblivion, Mass Effect, Uncharted, etc. ad nauseum that air aimed squarely at the core, traditional gamer.
Clearly they are totally focused on that market, and throw an occausional bone to the casuals with a party game, music gamer etc.
While Nintendo is focused on keeping their core of fanboys with their titles, bringing in non-gamers with Wii Sports and other motion control, simple pick up and play games, and throwing the occasional bone to the core gamer with some traditional games.
Thus they are all competing, but the PS3/360 more directly since they are throwing most of their effort into tradtional games aimed at the core gamer, while Nintendo is expending most effort on Nintendo fans and casual/non-gamers. Thus Nintendo competes LESS DIRECTLY.
[quote name='itachiitachi']The point is he said the nitendo is not doing much to compete, The fact the nitendo is getting exclusives games from these companies and even a game like manhunt(I don't think the would have been so eager to have this game last gen) show they are infact are.[/QUOTE]
They are doing something. Just MUCH LESS than MS and Sony as far as courting core gamers.
Their goal was to expand the market by getting casuals and non gamers, and they've had a huge success on this. So good for them.
But they aren't doing much to compete for core gamers (who aren't into Nintendo games) with ports of last gen games, dreck like Manhunt and niche titles like Zak and Wiki and No More Heros.
But Nintendo hasn't done well in competing for core gamers since the SNES (hence the poor showings of the N64 and GC compared to the PS1 and PS2) so it makes perfect sense that they wouldu change gears and not focus as much on winning over that crowd. And it's great that they pretty much have a license to print money from the success they've had by deciding to compete LESS DIRECTLY in the core gamer market.
They are doing something. Just MUCH LESS than MS and Sony as far as courting core gamers.
Their goal was to expand the market by getting casuals and non gamers, and they've had a huge success on this. So good for them.
But they aren't doing much to compete for core gamers (who aren't into Nintendo games) with ports of last gen games, dreck like Manhunt and niche titles like Zak and Wiki and No More Heros.
But Nintendo hasn't done well in competing for core gamers since the SNES (hence the poor showings of the N64 and GC compared to the PS1 and PS2) so it makes perfect sense that they wouldu change gears and not focus as much on winning over that crowd. And it's great that they pretty much have a license to print money from the success they've had by deciding to compete LESS DIRECTLY in the core gamer market.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Dude, like we've said a thousand ing times (including two posts above)...we never said they aren't trying to compete.
Just that they're doing it less directly and less successfully. They're throwing the core gamers shit games like Manhunt, and ports of a good game that was on two last gen consoles, and niche titles like Zak and Wiki and probably No More Heros (given that Killer 7 was a niche title).
While the PS3/360 has AAA new games like Bioshock, Ratchet and Clank, Orange Box, Halo, Oblivion, Mass Effect, Uncharted, etc. ad nauseum.
Clearly they are totally focused on that market, and throw an occausional bone to the casuals with a party game, music gamer etc.
While Nintendo is focused on keeping their core of fanboys with their titles, bringing in non-gamers with Wii Sports and other motion control, simple pick up and play games, and throwing the occasional bone to the core gamer with some traditional games.
Thus they are all competing, but the PS3/360 more directly since they are throwing most of their effort into tradtional games aimed at the core gamer, while Nintendo is expending most effort on Nintendo fans and casual/non-gamers. Thus Nintendo competes LESS DIRECTLY.[/quote]
less directly?? Wii has AAA titles as well... or do we forget about Mario Galaxy, which has outranked all those you've listed on gamerankings.com.. in the overall rankings you have 1 wii title and 1 360 title...
Wiis top ten
1. Super Mario Galaxy WII Nintendo 50 8.8 97.5% 
2. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess WII Nintendo 79 9.2 94.2% 
3. Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition WII Capcom 54 8.8 91.2% 
4. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption WII Nintendo 57 8.9 90.1% 
5. Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure WII Capcom 25 9.0 87.0% 
6. Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock WII RedOctane 26 9.2 86.9% 
7. Super Paper Mario WII Nintendo 64 8.8 85.3% 
8. Madden NFL 07 WII EA Sports 36 7.8 81.9% 
9. WarioWare: Smooth Moves WII Nintendo 61 8.1 81.9% 
10. Trauma Center: Second Opinion WII Atlus Co. 53 8.4 80.9
X360s top
Title
Plat
Company
Reviews
Avg.
Vote
Avg
Score
1. The Orange Box X360 EA Games 47 9.1 96.2% 
2. BioShock X360 2K Games 85 9.2 95.3% 
3. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare X360 Activision 50 9.1 94.5% 
4. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion X360 2K Games 101 9.2 94.1% 
5. Gears of War X360 Microsoft Game Studios 107 8.7 93.8% 
6. Rock Band X360 MTV Games 22 10.0 93.6% 
7. Halo 3 X360 Microsoft Game Studios 82 8.5 93.2% 
8. Guitar Hero II X360 RedOctane 56 8.1 92.0% 
9. Mass Effect X360 Microsoft Game Studios 39 9.1 91.8% 
10. Virtua Fighter 5 Online X360 Sega 24 8.4 91.3%
the only thing that saves the 360 is that around half these titles were released from Sept - Now..
ing times (including two posts above)...we never said they aren't trying to compete.Just that they're doing it less directly and less successfully. They're throwing the core gamers shit games like Manhunt, and ports of a good game that was on two last gen consoles, and niche titles like Zak and Wiki and probably No More Heros (given that Killer 7 was a niche title).
While the PS3/360 has AAA new games like Bioshock, Ratchet and Clank, Orange Box, Halo, Oblivion, Mass Effect, Uncharted, etc. ad nauseum.
Clearly they are totally focused on that market, and throw an occausional bone to the casuals with a party game, music gamer etc.
While Nintendo is focused on keeping their core of fanboys with their titles, bringing in non-gamers with Wii Sports and other motion control, simple pick up and play games, and throwing the occasional bone to the core gamer with some traditional games.
Thus they are all competing, but the PS3/360 more directly since they are throwing most of their effort into tradtional games aimed at the core gamer, while Nintendo is expending most effort on Nintendo fans and casual/non-gamers. Thus Nintendo competes LESS DIRECTLY.[/quote]
less directly?? Wii has AAA titles as well... or do we forget about Mario Galaxy, which has outranked all those you've listed on gamerankings.com.. in the overall rankings you have 1 wii title and 1 360 title...
Wiis top ten
1. Super Mario Galaxy WII Nintendo 50 8.8 97.5% 2. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess WII Nintendo 79 9.2 94.2% 3. Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition WII Capcom 54 8.8 91.2% 4. Metroid Prime 3: Corruption WII Nintendo 57 8.9 90.1% 5. Zack & Wiki: Quest for Barbaros' Treasure WII Capcom 25 9.0 87.0% 6. Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock WII RedOctane 26 9.2 86.9% 7. Super Paper Mario WII Nintendo 64 8.8 85.3% 8. Madden NFL 07 WII EA Sports 36 7.8 81.9% 9. WarioWare: Smooth Moves WII Nintendo 61 8.1 81.9% 10. Trauma Center: Second Opinion WII Atlus Co. 53 8.4 80.9X360s top
Title
Plat
Company
Reviews
Avg.
Vote
Avg
Score
1. The Orange Box X360 EA Games 47 9.1 96.2% 2. BioShock X360 2K Games 85 9.2 95.3% 3. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare X360 Activision 50 9.1 94.5% 4. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion X360 2K Games 101 9.2 94.1% 5. Gears of War X360 Microsoft Game Studios 107 8.7 93.8% 6. Rock Band X360 MTV Games 22 10.0 93.6% 7. Halo 3 X360 Microsoft Game Studios 82 8.5 93.2% 8. Guitar Hero II X360 RedOctane 56 8.1 92.0% 9. Mass Effect X360 Microsoft Game Studios 39 9.1 91.8% 10. Virtua Fighter 5 Online X360 Sega 24 8.4 91.3% the only thing that saves the 360 is that around half these titles were released from Sept - Now..
itachiitachi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']Dude, like we've said a thousand ing times (including two posts above)
[/quote]
Actually that twice including the two post above ;-)
ing times (including two posts above)[/quote]
Actually that twice including the two post above ;-)
- Status
bread's done