The Wii's popularity pisses me off!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I care whether a console has enough games on it that I want to play. Yes, sales help dictate that, but I still don't pay attention to it in the extent of getting on the net and throwing around sales figures like the fanboys do.

All 3 consoles are building pretty solid libraries. There's pretty much something for everyone on all 3 systems, so the sales debates are more pointless than ever this generation.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']Its not directly competing with the xbox and ps3.[/quote]

Wrong. It is very much competing with both the XBOX360 AND PS3. Nothing against your point, I see what you mean in regard to die-hard gamer's choices to couple a Wii with something else, but it's rather interesting to see Nintendo somehow "disqualified" from this generation because of how much ass it's kicking. I wonder how many people would say that it's not competing with either of the consoles if the sales were poopy.

In case you don't see where I'm going - I believe there'd be no such claims.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']Wrong. It is very much competing with both the XBOX360 AND PS3. Nothing against your point, I see what you mean in regard to die-hard gamer's choices to couple a Wii with something else, but it's rather interesting to see Nintendo somehow "disqualified" from this generation because of how much ass it's kicking. I wonder how many people would say that it's not competing with either of the consoles if the sales were poopy.

In case you don't see where I'm going - I believe there'd be no such claims.[/QUOTE]


Sorry I gotta side with Whitewolf on this one, the Wii is not competing directly with the 360 and it is especially not competing with the PS3 (half the cost and TOTALLY diff games). They are totally different and for different demographics. Of course no absolute is aboslutely correct, I am sure it is competing some but I think the statement "The Wii is not competing directly with the 360/PS3" is more correct than the statement "The Wii is competing directly with the 360/PS3." This is just my opinion of course and I have no authority or source to back it up but (here I go again EXPLAINING and SUPPORTING my point) the games and types of games on the wii and other consoles are so different, the prices are so different, and the type of person who buys a wii or a 360/PS3 are so different I don't think they're competing. The demographic in which it would be competing (like myself) usually owns both a Wii/360 or Wii/PS3 combo to get the best of both worlds ergo no competition there b/c both win. See the sig. So in conclusion I think only the PS3/360 "directly" compete with each other; relative to the Wii of course. ;)
 
Guys, they are all game systems. Therefore, they innately compete against each other. On top of that, they all try to secure exclusive games and garner developers to focus solely on their platforms.

That is competition in full.

Now, the audiences they try to attack might be considered different. I can agree to that. To a point.

But saying they aren't competing has always been a terrible thing to say. It's like saying the DS and PSP aren't competing. They most certainly are.
 
I have a lot of respect for Nintendo for doing things, and making games as they want to make them.

The more I think about SMG, the more I marvel at how Nintendo has kept this franchise fresh. It's a whole new game with him. I'm saving Princess Peach again but just in entirely new ways.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Sorry I gotta side with Whitewolf on this one, the Wii is not competing directly with the 360 and it is especially not competing with the PS3 (half the cost and TOTALLY diff games). They are totally different and for different demographics. Of course no absolute is aboslutely correct, I am sure it is competing some but I think the statement "The Wii is not competing directly with the 360/PS3" is more correct than the statement "The Wii is competing directly with the 360/PS3." This is just my opinion of course and I have no authority or source to back it up but (here I go again EXPLAINING and SUPPORTING my point) the games and types of games on the wii and other consoles are so different, the prices are so different, and the type of person who buys a wii or a 360/PS3 are so different I don't think they're competing. The demographic in which it would be competing (like myself) usually owns both a Wii/360 or Wii/PS3 combo to get the best of both worlds ergo no competition there b/c both win. See the sig. So in conclusion I think only the PS3/360 "directly" compete with each other; relative to the Wii of course. ;)[/QUOTE]


u are wrong, people have only a finite amount of cash to allocate between the three consoles, so no matter what anyone says as long as they are all owned by different companies they will be in direct competition with each other for consumers' money
 
The are all competing in the sense that they are all game machines.

However, in terms of market share winning major third party franchises, I don't think the Wii is competing with the 360/PS3.

Even though it's winning the sales race, you're not going to see the big, mainstream franchises from third parties become exclusive to the Wii, if they come out at all.

Those sale more to "hardcore" gamers, and the Wii doesn't seem to have caught on much there given the poor sales of Metroid Prime 3 and other "real" games (though Mario seem to be doing well, at least in the US).

Plus it seems the developers of those major franchises care a lot about cutting edge graphics, so the PS3 or 360 will remain the lead skus on those--and Wii ports less likely to happen do to difficulty in toning down the graphics that much.

So, in sum, they are competing, just not as directly as the 360 and PS3 are with each other since the Wii skews to a different demographics, doesn't have the cutting edge graphics some developers want for their main IPs and so forth.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']u are wrong, people have only a finite amount of cash to allocate between the three consoles, so no matter what anyone says as long as they are all owned by different companies they will be in direct competition with each other for consumers' money[/QUOTE]

True. The difference is that Nintendo is aiming for a different demographic, and having a ton of success with that demographic.

While the PS3 and 360 are aimed squarely at core gamers, the Wii is focusing on casual gamers and non-gamers and hoping to get some core gamers along the way.

It's a very different gamer who would buy a Wii as their only/main console that those who buy a 360/PS3 as their only/main console.

So they are of course competing with each other, just less directly than in past generations.

Or I guess another way to put it would be they are competing directly in terms of being a gamers SECOND console purchase. But not for first or main as they just offer too different of gaming experiences to be in direct competition for a persons first/main console.

The type of games one likes will dictate at the outset whether they want a PS3/360 or Wii as their first/main console.
 
Yep the wii's popularity pisses me off too. Devs are doing a halfassed job because they know the games will sell.

I see a buttload of jaggies in SMG/Soul Calibur Legends like its being played on a PS1. I don't even remember an N64 game looking this bad.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Sorry I gotta side with Whitewolf on this one, the Wii is not competing directly with the 360 and it is especially not competing with the PS3 (half the cost and TOTALLY diff games). They are totally different and for different demographics. Of course no absolute is aboslutely correct, I am sure it is competing some but I think the statement "The Wii is not competing directly with the 360/PS3" is more correct than the statement "The Wii is competing directly with the 360/PS3." This is just my opinion of course and I have no authority or source to back it up but (here I go again EXPLAINING and SUPPORTING my point) the games and types of games on the wii and other consoles are so different, the prices are so different, and the type of person who buys a wii or a 360/PS3 are so different I don't think they're competing. The demographic in which it would be competing (like myself) usually owns both a Wii/360 or Wii/PS3 combo to get the best of both worlds ergo no competition there b/c both win. See the sig. So in conclusion I think only the PS3/360 "directly" compete with each other; relative to the Wii of course. ;)[/quote] pittpizza has it right. If the wii was directly competing it would have made a system with similar specs that appeal to the same audiences as the ps3 and 360.

The wii is definitely competing but when i said directly i really meant head to head. Its doing something so different from the other consoles that by indirectly competing, they are winning the war (at least in console numbers).


Basically Nintendo has created a situation were a hardcore gamer thinks... will i get a wii, 360 or p3? Most likely they will make a choice between the ps3 and 360, and then also get a wii because its a small low cause unit with some fun motion sensor games. They have effectively removed themselves from the 3way war. Most people will not get a ps3 and a 360 but they will get one of the two and if they get another system will most likely be a wii. Nintendo also picks up the Nintendo regulars and also is picking up the crowd of people that never played video games before.

maybe directly was a bad word to use, but Nintendo is not competing in the same way that the 360 and ps3 are with each other.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']pittpizza has it right.[/QUOTE]

Truer words have never been spoken. My meaning was that the Wii does not compete with the 360 and PS3 relative to how the latter two compete with each other.

On a broad enough spectum, everything "competes" with everything since everything for sale is "competing" for consumer's money.
 
[quote name='Strell']Ok. So are the DS Lite and the PSP competing with each other?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

WARNING: This may sound repetitive. On a broad enough spectum, everything "competes" with everything since everything for sale is "competing" for consumer's money.
 
I'd like to know why they compete and the Wii doesn't with the PS3 and 360.

It better be more than "well, there's only 2 handhelds, of course they will compete."
 
[quote name='Strell']I'd like to know why they compete and the Wii doesn't with the PS3 and 360.

It better be more than "well, there's only 2 handhelds, of course they will compete."[/QUOTE]

Then brush up on your reading comprehension because it has been laid out in a couple posts already.
 
Yes, and the majority of those posts were rehashes of "the Wii doesn't have the power so it doesn't compete." Which is like saying pretzels don't compete with chocolate chip cookies as snacks because they are savory instead of sweet.

Which is funny, since the DSLite doesn't have the power of the PSP, but you're telling me they are competing.

I don't think it's my reading comprehension skills that need work. I think people need to make better arguments that aren't little more than personal opinions spread across "see? ____ agrees with me too" diatribes.
 
No actually they were not, start with post 149 and then go from there.

Besides that point I already admitted that everything competes with everything so your semantic "argument" is about as stupid as your avatar.

If you're unable understand our points it's because your too big of an ass, or too combative to engage in any civil discourse, and thats your problem not ours so act like a grown up (even if you arent) or STFU and GTFO.
 
I don't think someone with a Meatwad avatar gets to complain about anyone's avatar. Or, really, any taste in anything. And for complaining about being an adult, you're acting like a baby because your terrible opinions are worth debating.

Your argument rests on a few funny points, such as "totally different games." But there's multiplatform games across all three (Madden), there's just as many genres represented directly (Haze vs Halo vs Metroid, Mario vs Ratchet and Clank vs Kameo), and in a rather odd twist, Sony and Microsoft are trying to mimic the minigame/family oriented/casual/non-game game market that Nintendo really opened up.

And as I said after that, to say they aren't competing is erroneous. To say they might be attracting different markets is a little more correct, and even then, it's really vague to dissect the entire gaming market into neat little sections and pretend that there's only certain subsets only one system can attract or pander to.

Since consumers can only be stretched so far, it is in the best interests of all three players to get as much support as they can. And I'm willing to bet that - behind the scenes - it's a lot more bloody than we know. Assassin's Creed is a good example, which went from being a PS3 exclusive to a port on Xbox 360, and really "port" is the wrong word since they came out at the same time. Additionally - and while I don't know this for certain - I've heard the 360 version plays better.

They all compete, quite directly, despite whatever library of games are being shown at the moment. Otherwise, you'll have to explain to me why Sony and Microsoft seem to continually comment about seemingly everything the Wii is and is not doing. I guess if I wasn't worried about it, I wouldn't show that by talking about it all the time.

Sony and Microsoft fighting for the same piece of pie doesn't mean Nintendo doesn't want it too.

Please feel free to toss a few more "omfg stfu's" around if you want.
 
It does not surprise me you don't like ATHF, I'll leave it at that.

Acting like a baby....uh...yeah...babies post on int. message bards, brilliant.

What argument?? Whats this argument you're talking about ???? Whats my "argument" Einstein? Is yours that they compete b/c sony and Microsoft "talk about" the Wii? All anybody said was that they don't compete w/ the Wii the way they compete with each other as directly, Dmaul put it well when he said "So, in sum, they are competing, just not as directly as the 360 and PS3 are with each other since the Wii skews to a different demographics, doesn't have the cutting edge graphics some developers want for their main IPs and so forth" but you've got your head shoved up your ass so far that you can't acknowledge anybody else's POV but your own and its pissing me (and obviously others) off. I hate to ignore anybody b/c to me it's like admitting defeat but you're pushin it. Especially with the G-d awful length of your pointless posts.

Assassin's Creed is really bad ass IMO btw.

Now STFU and GTFO.
 
After reading nine pages of the above I'm left with a few conclusions:
first and foremost play what you like.

to me any nintendo system has always been about their 1st party stuff - you can't get it anywhere else. Therefore, anything extra beyond the great 1st party stuff is pure icing on the cake.

I suppose for those people that still have a ton of time to game having a continous stream of stuff to play is more important than it is to me since I have waaaay less time to play than I used to - so in a sense a console with less stuff to keep up with is great for me, I don't buy a bunch of games that I never get around to playing (see my PS2 collection)

and apparently I still don't get the whole HD gaming thing - do games on the PS3 and 360 look great? hell yeah sometimes they do - but me I'll take gameplay over graphics any day of the week

Maybe I'm just getting old but shit that used to matter to me (which console gets FF, MGS, etc) just doesn't matter anymore none of em are as good as the older ones it always seems.

Anywho thats my rambling for now and one other thing Dargoa - Browns rock!!! 7-4 :)

now back to your regularly scheduled ranting and raving
 
[quote name='strell']I don't think someone with a Meatwad avatar gets to complain about anyone's avatar. Or, really, any taste in anything.[/QUOTE]So chroo.
 
DS and PSP are more directly competing as they're the only 2 handhelds and the DS makes much more of an effort with the hardcore gamers than the Wii has thus far.

Yes Nintendo still pushes the casual stuff with Brain Age and what not, but there area ton of "real" games that attract the hard core as well.

Hell, I'd say the DS is the best platform for the hardcore gamer thus far this gen, though the 360 has closed the gap this year.
 
I'll use some simple economic terms here.

The whole point of this "competing" argument is how good of substitutes things are. For example, if you had two identical shirts, they would be perfect substitutes. There would be absolutely no reason, by definition, that you would choose one over the other, other than price. Now if you make one shirt black, and the other grey, they are still pretty good substitutes, but not perfect anymore. If you prefer black, you might be willing to pay $1 more for the black shirt. However, if it was $5 more, you might live with the grey shirt for the price. Now change the grey shirt to a pink long sleeve shirt instead of a black t-shirt. These are much further apart, and aren't as good of substitutes. You might not even want to consider the pink shirt at all if you just don't like pink.

The point that I think some people are trying to make, which is valid, is that the Wii is not as good of a substitute for a 360 as a PS3 is (or that a 360 is for a PS3). The 360 and PS3 are more similar products. They are definitely still competing, but Nintendo has made its' product a little bit more different.

The DS and PSP are also competing. They are better substitutes for eachother, so they are competing more with eachother. They can also be looked at as substitutes for a Wii/360/PS3, but not as good of substitutes, so they aren't competing as directly. What Nintendo is trying to do with the Wii and DS is make them more of compliments - so owning both actually increases the utility that you get from them. There isn't much interaction between the two yet, so they really aren't compliments yet.
 
From day one I always thought the Wii was a "White trash" system. It's turning into a homebased GBA. look on gamefaqs at the releases for the rest of the year...that's pathetic.
 
[quote name='thingsfallnapart']From day one I always thought the Wii was a "White trash" system.[/quote]

You are a racist piece of shit. The mods will be notified.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']You are a racist piece of shit. The mods will be notified.[/QUOTE]

I said it's a "white trash" system clearly because it's low price point attracts people who should have nothing to do with video games. If i have one more person at work coming to me begging for nascar on Wii im going to scream. I swear if they package this system with deer hunter 08 it would be in every household. Yes, it runs that deep.
 
[quote name='zewone']:lol: I want to know how a system get's classified as a "white trash" system?

Is the 360 "that nigger box"?[/QUOTE]

Glad you have a sense of humor. I think with xbox first advertising campaign with xbox live, i wouldn't be suprised. "It's good to play togetha"
 
[quote name='drfunk85']
The point that I think some people are trying to make, which is valid, is that the Wii is not as good of a substitute for a 360 as a PS3 is (or that a 360 is for a PS3). The 360 and PS3 are more similar products. They are definitely still competing, but Nintendo has made its' product a little bit more different.[/quote]

yup, this is the point I was trying to make. thanks for rewording it better.
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']yup, this is the point I was trying to make. thanks for rewording it better.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure people understood what we were saying. This is especially true since it was said over and over and reworded about a half dozen times. If they couldn't they are either just plain stupid or have very poor comprehension. Either that or they're just being trolls, which happens.
 
On the subject of white trash... just never saw anyone be like "hey man, why are you talking this way?" when _that_ racial epitaph is used, and thought the alternative is worth exploring. I'm kind of sort of "all about" that "free speech" thing, and I believe all hate speech is protected.


On the subject of competition... I just want to say that pretty much anyone who claims that XBOX / PS3 are somehow in a different "game" than the Wii is are spouting fanboy talk propagated by the idiotic company figureheads. Your statement makes sense for a very small percentage of console owners - the so-called "hardcore crowd." Generally, though, the proper hardcore fan will end up with all three.

It is rather convenient to have the little hardware pep-talk ready to go every time someone points out that it is neither fair nor consistent to cut out the current market leader from your amateur analysis.

I will say that the abundance of cross-platform titles between 360 and PS3 certainly supports your point that the two are damn near interchangable. But that's not the point you are trying to make, as everyone expects their representative systems to get more and more of bad ass exclusives.

Your point is that a toaster that can toast 8 slices of bread and a toaster that can only toast 2 can not compete with one another, because one is obviously ever so much more powerful than the other (factor of four, mind you). Yet frying pans (they are hand-held, get it?) most certainly can, despite an almost exact fucking predicament.

Your claims lack consistency, despite making sense. If you concede that DS and PSP are in direct competition, and suddenly MASSIVE difference in power is somehow "dismissable" (and I'd say that the DS is basically two GBAs duct taped together), the only question that remains is: who do I go to to find out if products designed and targeted at specific audiences compete or not? Because according to pittpizza some DO and some DO NOT compete, despite anything but mirroring the situation at that other market.


Consistency, as I told Zen Davis in that other thread, is kind of important.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']On the subject of white trash... just never saw anyone be like "hey man, why are you talking this way?" when _that_ racial epitaph is used, and thought the alternative is worth exploring. I'm kind of sort of "all about" that "free speech" thing, and I believe all hate speech is protected.


On the subject of competition... I just want to say that pretty much anyone who claims that XBOX / PS3 are somehow in a different "game" than the Wii is are spouting fanboy talk propagated by the idiotic company figureheads. Your statement makes sense for a very small percentage of console owners - the so-called "hardcore crowd." Generally, though, the proper hardcore fan will end up with all three.

It is rather convenient to have the little hardware pep-talk ready to go every time someone points out that it is neither fair nor consistent to cut out the current market leader from your amateur analysis.

I will say that the abundance of cross-platform titles between 360 and PS3 certainly supports your point that the two are damn near interchangable. But that's not the point you are trying to make, as everyone expects their representative systems to get more and more of bad ass exclusives.

Your point is that a toaster that can toast 8 slices of bread and a toaster that can only toast 2 can not compete with one another, because one is obviously ever so much more powerful than the other (factor of four, mind you). Yet frying pans (they are hand-held, get it?) most certainly can, despite an almost exact fucking predicament.

Your claims lack consistency, despite making sense. If you concede that DS and PSP are in direct competition, and suddenly MASSIVE difference in power is somehow "dismissable" (and I'd say that the DS is basically two GBAs duct taped together), the only question that remains is: who do I go to to find out if products designed and targeted at specific audiences compete or not? Because according to pittpizza some DO and some DO NOT compete, despite anything but mirroring the situation at that other market.


Consistency, as I told Zen Davis in that other thread, is kind of important.[/quote]

It's obvious you like consistency because you've consistently misunderstood or chose to ignore my point. I'm done dumbing it down for you since it seems no matter how I put it someone will misinterpret/misrepresent/mischaracterize or somehow bastardize the thrust of the points we've been trying to explain. EDIT: Okay, I'll give it one more time to try and make it clear for the extra stupid/stubborn.

One of the most frustrating things is that I'm actually having a difficult time trying to figure out if people are really this stupid or if they're just being an ass. It's a close call; probably a little bit of both.

Perhaps even more frustrating is that I'm so damn benevolent that I can't resist trying to help those that are stupid, or being asses, or both. So I will give it another shot. Here it goes:

We've already settled that on a broad enough spectrum everything "competes" with everything else since any given consumer has fixed finances. So while saying that a new honda civic is competing with the Wii is technically correct, it really is not saying a whole lot. So in this sense, YES, the Wii is "competing" with the 360/PS3, perhaps in an even more accurate sense than a grapefruit competes with prophylactics. Nobody ever said that the Wii does not compete in any way whatsoever with the 360/PS3. What we have been trying to convey, (and have said over, and over, and over agian) is that the Wii is not in as direct a competetition with the 360/PS3 as they are with each other.

The differences in hardware is just one of the many factors people have listed demonstrating the differences between the system, akin to the sleeve length in a previous analogy. It is one and only one, of many factors. Others are price, availability, approachability, game library, exclusive IP, online connectevity, maturity, etc.....

I thought a fanboy was someone who was so dedicated to one system that they can't acknowledge the pros/cons or think logically about the others. Am I a fanboy? If so of what system because I thought I loved them both? I only own the 360 and the Wii so which one am I a fanboy of? You tell me.
 
[quote name='drfunk85']I'll use some simple economic terms here.

The whole point of this "competing" argument is how good of substitutes things are. For example, if you had two identical shirts, they would be perfect substitutes. There would be absolutely no reason, by definition, that you would choose one over the other, other than price. Now if you make one shirt black, and the other grey, they are still pretty good substitutes, but not perfect anymore. If you prefer black, you might be willing to pay $1 more for the black shirt. However, if it was $5 more, you might live with the grey shirt for the price. Now change the grey shirt to a pink long sleeve shirt instead of a black t-shirt. These are much further apart, and aren't as good of substitutes. You might not even want to consider the pink shirt at all if you just don't like pink.

The point that I think some people are trying to make, which is valid, is that the Wii is not as good of a substitute for a 360 as a PS3 is (or that a 360 is for a PS3). The 360 and PS3 are more similar products. They are definitely still competing, but Nintendo has made its' product a little bit more different.

The DS and PSP are also competing. They are better substitutes for eachother, so they are competing more with eachother. They can also be looked at as substitutes for a Wii/360/PS3, but not as good of substitutes, so they aren't competing as directly. What Nintendo is trying to do with the Wii and DS is make them more of compliments - so owning both actually increases the utility that you get from them. There isn't much interaction between the two yet, so they really aren't compliments yet.[/QUOTE]

Well put. That's exactly what I was getting at.
 
Man. I love how people debating someone else's point is considering asinine behavior on the Internets, and that being able to fully express thoughts with adequate conclusions and conditional phrases makes you into a big, mean person who - ironically - is "also stupid." Aren't you a lawyer by the way?

Also, Pepsi and Coke are carbonated. Tea isn't, unless there's some screwed up teas out there I'm not aware of. So they don't really count. Also, there is no "power" argument with beverages, though making two of them alcoholic and the third not would have been a more interesting argument. Plus, they tend to all be equal in terms of cost. To say nothing that they don't have developers to entice to make applications for the kind nepenthe in question. They all satiate thirst. Your argument is that someone might want a cola versus a non-cola. Which is a difficult thing to ascertain - there's lots of factors to take into consideration. Like, does the water in that physical region suck? Because then the tea sucks, so there's NO reason to get the tea. Does the place in question even offer all three? Did one of them have E.Coli discovered in them lately? Too many factors. Food is a different beast altogteher - being that we consume things for energy - so it's kind of hard for me to see it as an adequate metaphor.

So let's ask it like this. The general public asks about things like "Super Mario on the Playbox" and the like all the time. To them, game systems is game systems. Still doesn't sound like they know what the hell they are talking about, and still sounds like all three go after all three.

Get mad again if you want, because I've (and MC, funnily enough) already agreed - and said a long time ago - that the hardcore market recognizes the differences because we understand the concept of games/developers/exclusive titles/etc, and thus you could argue they go after different markets. But again, that is not the same as removing some system from the race altogether.

It's kind of like saying....the Wii isn't competing at all. It's not even a direct or indirect thing - it's like "Oh yea, there's only 2 systems, and then that other thing." Phew. Not to Joe Average. Joe Gamer? Yes. But the minority is the minority for a reason these days.
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']
On the subject of competition... I just want to say that pretty much anyone who claims that XBOX / PS3 are somehow in a different "game" than the Wii is are spouting fanboy talk propagated by the idiotic company figureheads. Your statement makes sense for a very small percentage of console owners - the so-called "hardcore crowd." Generally, though, the proper hardcore fan will end up with all three.
[/quote]

It's too expensive this gen for many/most to get all 3...at least this early in the Gen.

And the PS3/360 and Wii offer entirely different gaming experiences. If someone--hardcore or casual gamer---is deciding what console to buy first (or as their only console they're going to think about what type of games they want to play.

If they like FPS, sports, racing, RPG--traditional genres in other words, they're going to see thatthe PS3 and 360 are their best options and not even consider the Wii.

And Vice Versa if they like party games, non-games, mini-games and general fun, pick up and play casual games. The Wii will be their only real option.

Thus the Wii competes less directly with the others compared to the PS3/360 which offer more or less the exact same type of gaming experience. Thus the choice between those two comes down to just price and which has the most exclusives the consumer wants to play. THAT is direct competition. While the decision for 360/PS3 or Wii comes down to the broad types of games available.

Your claims lack consistency, despite making sense. If you concede that DS and PSP are in direct competition, and suddenly MASSIVE difference in power is somehow "dismissable" (and I'd say that the DS is basically two GBAs duct taped together), the only question that remains is: who do I go to to find out if products designed and targeted at specific audiences compete or not? Because according to pittpizza some DO and some DO NOT compete, despite anything but mirroring the situation at that other market.
Click to expand...

There's no lack of consistency as I don't think the power issue has anything (or at least not much) to do with why the Wii competes less directly.

The reason, as illustrated above, is all due to the type of games. People buy consoles to play the games they want to play, and the PS3/360 offer the exact same types of gaming experience (traditional genres) while the Wii offers somethign totally different for the most part (party games, casual games, niche genres like Zak and Wiki etc.).

On the other hand, the PSP and DS have much more overlap in gaming experiences as developers haven't eschewed traditional, hardcore games on the DS. Of couruse their are differences between the two, and one will be more right for others, but it is more direct competion as the decision comes down to price and exclusives rather than just ruling one out based on the broad TYPE of games it offers as can be done with the 360/PS3 vs Wii decision.
 
The OP seems to be the type of person that would start a military type boot camp for troubled kids and starve them for not being "hardcore" enough. I kid but that seems to be the direction he's going with this Wii argument.

This is America. Let people play what they want to play. If the Wii becomes the shovelware system, maybe the 360 and PS3 will flourish with the "hardcore" games like Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, and the Orange Box.

My buddy has a Wii and he plays Tiger Woods and Wii Play all day long. After a long day's work, he doesn't want to be frustrated with difficult controls or cheap bosses. He just wants to have fun. That's why the majority of people play games. I bought him a copy of Resident Evil 4 for Christmas and I hope he enjoys it but I know he would've never bought it on his own because it's not his type of game. Instead of getting pissed that people aren't playing the games you think they should play, expose them to the games that you think are awesome. Rent a couple games, pick up a 12 pack of your favorite local brew and go have fun instead of sitting here bitching about nothing.
 
[quote name='Strell']Man. I love how people debating someone else's point is considering asinine behavior on the Internets, and that being able to fully express thoughts with adequate conclusions and conditional phrases makes you into a big, mean person who - ironically - is "also stupid." Aren't you a lawyer by the way?

Also, Pepsi and Coke are carbonated. Tea isn't, unless there's some screwed up teas out there I'm not aware of. So they don't really count. Also, there is no "power" argument with beverages, though making two of them alcoholic and the third not would have been a more interesting argument. Plus, they tend to all be equal in terms of cost. To say nothing that they don't have developers to entice to make applications for the kind nepenthe in question. They all satiate thirst. Your argument is that someone might want a cola versus a non-cola. Which is a difficult thing to ascertain - there's lots of factors to take into consideration. Like, does the water in that physical region suck? Because then the tea sucks, so there's NO reason to get the tea. Does the place in question even offer all three? Did one of them have E.Coli discovered in them lately? Too many factors. Food is a different beast altogteher - being that we consume things for energy - so it's kind of hard for me to see it as an adequate metaphor.

So let's ask it like this. The general public asks about things like "Super Mario on the Playbox" and the like all the time. To them, game systems is game systems. Still doesn't sound like they know what the hell they are talking about, and still sounds like all three go after all three.

Get mad again if you want, because I've (and MC, funnily enough) already agreed - and said a long time ago - that the hardcore market recognizes the differences because we understand the concept of games/developers/exclusive titles/etc, and thus you could argue they go after different markets. But again, that is not the same as removing some system from the race altogether.

It's kind of like saying....the Wii isn't competing at all. It's not even a direct or indirect thing - it's like "Oh yea, there's only 2 systems, and then that other thing." Phew. Not to Joe Average. Joe Gamer? Yes. But the minority is the minority for a reason these days.[/quote]

Response to first question: Yup. Disagreeing is not stupid, but refusing to acknowledge/understand a clearly made point is...well...lets keep it civil.

As to the holes you ripped in my analogy, I knew I had that coming but it was the best I could come up with at the time. No analogy (drinks, shirts, w/e) is ever perfect. The point was not to link gaming to drinking but to analyze the way they compete. If you fail to see that...well...um....lets keep it civil.

Again, nobody ever said the Wii is not competing with the 360/PS3 AT ALL, it just doesnt compete in the same way the latter two compete with each other.

EDIT: TO respond to Depsacal's post, I admitted I'm sort of a gaming snob, (as are most on CAG) but one major theme in this thread was to let people game how they want to game, even if they are missing out on the best games the Wii has to offer; meanwhile just sit back and watch and hope that the popularity of shovelware does not skew the library. So I've been enlightened.
 
[quote name='depascal22']
My buddy has a Wii and he plays Tiger Woods and Wii Play all day long. After a long day's work, he doesn't want to be frustrated with difficult controls or cheap bosses. He just wants to have fun. That's why the majority of people play games. [/QUOTE]

See, that's great, and gets to my point above.

For him, the Wii was really the only option. He want's fun, casual games that he can just pick up and play. The Wii is the option for that.

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.

Again, that's why the Wii competes LESS DIRECTLY than the PS3 and 360 do with each other--totally different gaming experiences.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Response to first question: Yup. Disagreeing is not stupid, but refusing to acknowledge/understand a clearly made point is...well...lets keep it civil.[/quote]

You know, it's interesting that despite the fact that I've said that your point makes perfect sense, that it rings true for the ones we refer to as "hardcore," you sure do like to aim your shit my way.

Your calculations are correct, but not in the way that you're expecting. If you're expecting me to sound the foghorn of insults your way... You are mistaken. If you're expecting to fully get away with your not-so-subtle attempts to call me stupid - you are correct 100%.

Truth is, it doesn't matter who believes what. Whether or not Sony and Microsoft are losing market share due to the Wii's success is the only true indicator of the extent of Nintendo's competitorship, and truth be told, not even the companies themselves know for sure in the long run. If you wanna talk about why Zack & Wiki are "the awesome" or give me a nice write up as to what makes 360 great (holla about that before Brütal Legend lands, I need to make up my mind whether I'm getting PS3 or 360) then please, I'll most gladly oblige. As far as this debate - I feel that whoever wins, still loses.

And for the record - I've never aimed the "fanboy" tag at anyone. Because I know better than you all that the pot should shut the fuck up. (And I'm the pot)
 
[quote name='depascal22']The OP seems to be the type of person that would start a military type boot camp for troubled kids and starve them for not being "hardcore" enough. I kid but that seems to be the direction he's going with this Wii argument.

This is America. Let people play what they want to play. If the Wii becomes the shovelware system, maybe the 360 and PS3 will flourish with the "hardcore" games like Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, and the Orange Box.

My buddy has a Wii and he plays Tiger Woods and Wii Play all day long. After a long day's work, he doesn't want to be frustrated with difficult controls or cheap bosses. He just wants to have fun. That's why the majority of people play games. I bought him a copy of Resident Evil 4 for Christmas and I hope he enjoys it but I know he would've never bought it on his own because it's not his type of game. Instead of getting pissed that people aren't playing the games you think they should play, expose them to the games that you think are awesome. Rent a couple games, pick up a 12 pack of your favorite local brew and go have fun instead of sitting here bitching about nothing.[/quote]

well said in the end it all comes down to fun and what you enjoy
 
[quote name='White-Wolf']
Basically Nintendo has created a situation were a hardcore gamer thinks... will i get a wii, 360 or p3? Most likely they will make a choice between the ps3 and 360, and then also get a wii because its a small low cause unit with some fun motion sensor games. They have effectively removed themselves from the 3way war. Most people will not get a ps3 and a 360 but they will get one of the two and if they get another system will most likely be a wii. Nintendo also picks up the Nintendo regulars and also is picking up the crowd of people that never played video games before.

maybe directly was a bad word to use, but Nintendo is not competing in the same way that the 360 and ps3 are with each other.[/quote]

Actully the main stream gamer is the market all three are competing for, a true gamer sees the the experience each system has to offer and choses one(or more) all the gamer (do you think nitendo would really be wasting time and money on getting exclusives from rockstar capcom ect.. if they just wanted fan boys and soccer moms?).

where the 360/ps3 are competing are for the madden/halo/gta crowd and "graphic whore" demographic(sure some get a wii but most don't consider it).
The wii instead of focusing this market is going aftet the non-traditional gamer. (yes DDR and GHIII for PS and 360 also competes in this market but it dosent seem to be the focus of either other company)

Every gamer I know or talk to Has(or is trying to get) a wii and/or 360 or is waiting for another price drop and MGS or FF to get a PS3
 
[quote name='MarioColbert']On the subject of white trash... just never saw anyone be like "hey man, why are you talking this way?" when _that_ racial epitaph is used, and thought the alternative is worth exploring. I'm kind of sort of "all about" that "free speech" thing, and I believe all hate speech is protected.


On the subject of competition... I just want to say that pretty much anyone who claims that XBOX / PS3 are somehow in a different "game" than the Wii is are spouting fanboy talk propagated by the idiotic company figureheads. Your statement makes sense for a very small percentage of console owners - the so-called "hardcore crowd." Generally, though, the proper hardcore fan will end up with all three.

It is rather convenient to have the little hardware pep-talk ready to go every time someone points out that it is neither fair nor consistent to cut out the current market leader from your amateur analysis.

I will say that the abundance of cross-platform titles between 360 and PS3 certainly supports your point that the two are damn near interchangable. But that's not the point you are trying to make, as everyone expects their representative systems to get more and more of bad ass exclusives.

Your point is that a toaster that can toast 8 slices of bread and a toaster that can only toast 2 can not compete with one another, because one is obviously ever so much more powerful than the other (factor of four, mind you). Yet frying pans (they are hand-held, get it?) most certainly can, despite an almost exact fucking predicament.

Your claims lack consistency, despite making sense. If you concede that DS and PSP are in direct competition, and suddenly MASSIVE difference in power is somehow "dismissable" (and I'd say that the DS is basically two GBAs duct taped together), the only question that remains is: who do I go to to find out if products designed and targeted at specific audiences compete or not? Because according to pittpizza some DO and some DO NOT compete, despite anything but mirroring the situation at that other market.


Consistency, as I told Zen Davis in that other thread, is kind of important.[/quote]

First of all, all gaming consoles and handhelds are in "direct" competition. The DS is directly competing with the PS3. The DS is directly competing with the Wii. The Wii is directly competing with the PS3. Just because I say the Wii isn't competing to the same degree doesn't mean it still isn't competing.

As far as the DS/PSP, the competition is closer than the Wii/360 because they are both handhelds and the power doesn't matter as much. The key to a handheld is not its' power but its' portability. Things related to portability and use matter more than actual power. If the PSP only had a 5 minute battery life, it wouldn't matter how powerful it was.

Look, I am the biggest Nintendo fanboy that exists. The games and experiences that exist on the Wii are more different to the games and experiences on the 360/PS3 than they are to eachother. It's not like there aren't a lot of similarities between the Wii and the 360/PS3, but the 360/PS3 have more similarities, and thus are in greater competition. That's a good thing for the Wii though.
 
on the subject of avatars i think most people here have sucky avatars. don't get me started on all the hideously ugly signatures. [quote name='drfunk85']There isn't much interaction between the two yet, so they really aren't compliments yet.[/quote]there's more interaction b/w the GBA/Gamecube. Seeing as how it's should be SO much easier to connect the Wii and DS there's no reason we shouldn't have all sorts of 'hook up the ds' bonuses but i think we only have one game and it's My Word Coach.[quote name='thingsfallnapart']From day one I always thought the Wii was a "White trash" system. It's turning into a homebased GBA. look on gamefaqs at the releases for the rest of the year...that's pathetic.[/quote]I thought that was hilarious. Because the Wii is white.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top