Let's paint a dystopian future: What if the Wii reaches PS2 levels?

[quote name='schuerm26']That would be a perfectly acceptable comment since the PS3 is advertised as a graphics powerhouse. The Wii is not.[/QUOTE]

Obviously they wouldn't advertise it as a graphics powerhouse. They'd say that they have some sort of bullshit innovation in the way games will be played when there really isn't one. Which is somehow acceptable with the right amount of hype.
 
[quote name='dpatel']Sony's domination was no where near Nintendo's.[/QUOTE]

Hmm..

Sony defeated Nintendo and Sega with the PSOne..

Sony defeated Sega, Nintendo, AND Microsoft with the PS2....

Let me see..

Nintendo had a virtual monopoly all to themselves in the days of the NES, with Atari dead and the Mastersystem little known.

Then the SNES came out, the Turbografx was a blip on the radar, and then Sega ripped them apart in the US during the Genesis days.

And then Sony pushed them into third place, allowing even Sega to stay afloat until the Dreamcast days.

Only now has Nintendo started to see Sony like success, with the Wii and the DS Lite today, and the GBC/GBA and Pokemon in the late 90's.
 
[quote name='sarausagi']Hmm..

Sony defeated Nintendo and Sega with the PSOne..

Sony defeated Sega, Nintendo, AND Microsoft with the PS2....

Let me see..

Nintendo had a virtual monopoly all to themselves in the days of the NES, with Atari dead and the Mastersystem little known.

Then the SNES came out, the Turbografx was a blip on the radar, and then Sega ripped them apart in the US during the Genesis days.

And then Sony pushed them into third place, allowing even Sega to stay afloat until the Dreamcast days.

Only now has Nintendo started to see Sony like success, with the Wii and the DS Lite today, and the GBC/GBA and Pokemon in the late 90's.[/QUOTE]

I was comparing Sony's CONSOLE domination (PS1/PS2) to Nintendo's HANDHELD domination (GB, GBC, GBA, DS). Sony doesn't come close to Nintendo's handheld domination.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']That would be a perfectly acceptable comment since the PS3 is advertised as a graphics powerhouse. The Wii is not.[/QUOTE]

The Wii is technically more powerful than the Gamecube: there's no excuse why the games [even the flagship almighty Zelda] look worse than Nintendo 64 games.

This isn't like the Saturn where the programming was downright impossible...yet Sega still managed to push out Nights, Shining Force III, Virtua Fighter 2, Burning Rangers, and on top of that, the first widescreen and high resolution games on the market.

Show me that the programming scheme is completely different on the Wii and that it's as hard to program as the PS3 or the Saturn and I'll believe this all the Wii is capable of. But no, because the PS3 is 10x harder to program for than the Wii and they're still pushing out graphics better than 360 second year in the first few months of the console.

Nintendo's just taken advantage that their fanboys are a bunch of blind morons and that the consumer is more than willing to get raped for the sake of quote unquote fun. Everything about the Wii remote is second rate technology with already established programming, the graphics are based on standard processors by ATI and the core is essentialy the same as the Gamecube, the programming should be down and there should be Dead or Alive 3/Halo 2 quality graphics at the very least. I'm willing to say there's CAGs on here who can program for PowerPC and ATI cores.
 
[quote name='sarausagi']
Nintendo's just taken advantage that their fanboys are a bunch of blind morons and that the consumer is more than willing to get raped for the sake of quote unquote fun.[/QUOTE]

This is the definition of flamebait, but I agree with it wholeheartedly.
 
I dont see whats so hard to understand about this. If developers really wanted to make a graphically advanced game, they can, or they've got the 360 and PS3.

If they can sell software without it, then more power to them.
 
[quote name='sarausagi']The Wii is technically more powerful than the Gamecube: there's no excuse why the games [even the flagship almighty Zelda] look worse than Nintendo 64 games. [/quote]Wow, now you're just grasping at straws. Twilight Princess looks like an N64 game? Have you played it on the Cube or Wii? Scratch that, have you ever seen it in motion?

The games that look like crap are to have their blame laid squarely on the developers, not the hardware. If you look at Sonic, you get an idea of what the Wii is capable of. Those environments are rich, vibrant, and active--and not mention blazingly fast. Sega did it right graphicaly with Sonic on the Wii.

If the PS3 had Wii calibur graphics (hardware wise, obviosuly Sony can't be blamed for crappy looking software any more thna Nintendo can), and STILL cost $600, you better believe people would complain. If it undercut the competition, then there would be far less room for complaint.

You don't need to like the Wii. If you're content with the PS3 and/or 360, great for you. For me, I need more diversity in my software than the 360 offers. Thus, the Wii and DS are my primary gaming systems (note that both use unique things people are so quick to label "gimmicks" as well as quality, standard titles).

But that's the great thing about all of this. You can like whatever you want, and it's still ok. Not every putz posting on a message board needs to agree with you. ;)
 
[quote name='daroga']Wow, now you're just grasping at straws. Twilight Princess looks like an N64 game? Have you played it on the Cube or Wii? Scratch that, have you ever seen it in motion?

[/quote]

Yes, and yes. I swear, the textures are ripped straight out of Ocarina [which I have seen played the entire way through and played about half way through myself on the N64] and look nearly identical to the GC version I played for about 3 hours. I have not played the Gamecube Twilight Princess: only the Wii version up until you become a wolf.


The games that look like crap are to have their blame laid squarely on the developers, not the hardware. If you look at Sonic, you get an idea of what the Wii is capable of. Those environments are rich, vibrant, and active--and not mention blazingly fast. Sega did it right graphicaly with Sonic on the Wii.
Click to expand...

Sonic looks alright..better than the PS2 stuff at the very least, but have you taken a look at NiGHTS? Most people agree it looks like a N64 game and I honestly think the Saturn version looks a lot more lush, more vibrant, and more flowing.


If the PS3 had Wii calibur graphics (hardware wise, obviosuly Sony can't be blamed for crappy looking software any more thna Nintendo can), and STILL cost $600, you better believe people would complain. If it undercut the competition, then there would be far less room for complaint.
Click to expand...

No, the real problem is that the original X-Box was cheaper than the Wii, which is weird, because the original X-box had an 8 GB hard drive, an equivalent graphic core, roughly the same amount of memory, and a somewhat weaker processor. Yet it was $299 half a decade ago, and $199 a few months after! Even with the Wii remote in consideration, the Wii should not have been more than $199. So it's strange, people complained about the 360's graphics when it was released for $400, and people complain about the PS3, but somehow no one complains about the Wii...when it is as guilty of as many faults as its counterparts.

What you really have to understand is this: it's okay for people to like whatever they like, but the real problem is that PS3 owners [and to a lesser degree, 360 owners] get shit everywhere they go. I can't even go into a store and say "Hey, i'm looking for this PS3 game" or "Do you have a confirmed date for Lair?" without getting some sort of "PS3 sucks, it's nothing but shit, we're getting Wiis next week!!" and on the Internet, forget about it, if you're a PS3 owner and you actually love your console, you're an absolute minority! We get no respect, and after months and months of the same, it's a little tiring
 
[quote name='sarausagi']This isn't like the Saturn where the programming was downright impossible...yet Sega still managed to push out Nights, Shining Force III, Virtua Fighter 2, Burning Rangers, and on top of that, the first widescreen and high resolution games on the market. [/quote]
Look at the original Saturn release of VF1 compared to VF Remix, or VF2. Developers didn't get comfortable with the system for a good while after the system had already been out. Even Sega, the company who designed the system, put out substandard graphics with the original VF1.

Wii is in its sixth month. I'll grant you that the architecture is similar enough to a Gamecube, and that developers don't need that usual learning curve typically present with new systems in order to achieve good graphics. Wii presents a new problem however, and a completely different learning curve with the new controller. Instead of developers taking the time to learn new graphics, they have to take time and learn to program for the new control scheme.

With this in mind, you get games like Elebits. Konami has said that they had the basic Elebits engine up and running in less than a month, but it took the rest of the development cycle to familiarize themselves with the remote, and to get the controls to feel right (and they still aren't perfect).

Developers are putting most of their resources into control, instead of graphics, and that's just what they should be doing. Does this excuse crap like Far Cry? Absolutely not. But don't pretend that developers aren't facing any challenges with Wii development.
 
[quote name='Chacrana']This is the definition of flamebait, but I agree with it wholeheartedly.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Chac, but if you agree with a statement like that, then I have to suggest you not be outside when it rains, as I would fear you would drown.

They are selling it as an accessible system that's lots of fun. Period. Make up all these bullshit excuses that you want.

The "hardcore enlightened" camp just can't handle it.

And sara, boohoo. Shit about the PS3. Because there's not a million topics from people like you who not only dismiss the Wii, but slam the entire userbase as simplistic morons who don't know shit from shit, that you can't handle Nerdmotron at Gamestop calling it stupid names.

I think I could mine iron from something that ironic, and construct a goddamn house from it.
 
[quote name='sarausagi'] What you really have to understand is this: it's okay for people to like whatever they like, but the real problem is that PS3 owners [and to a lesser degree, 360 owners] get shit everywhere they go. I can't even go into a store and say "Hey, i'm looking for this PS3 game" or "Do you have a confirmed date for Lair?" without getting some sort of "PS3 sucks, it's nothing but shit, we're getting Wiis next week!!" and on the Internet, forget about it, if you're a PS3 owner and you actually love your console, you're an absolute minority! We get no respect, and after months and months of the same, it's a little tiring [/quote]Ah, Wii envy. I understand. :grouphug:
 
What I want to see for the Wii is a Starfox game that is like the N64 version but using the Wii remote. Granted I haven't even played a Wii, but there are several games I want for the system. I think I might break down and buy one over the summer, I dunno. If I were to buy a Wii right now I would still need something else, like a PS2. Reading all you people post about how badass your Wii is makes me want to go out and get one right now.

As mentioned before the Wii has some good games out, but then a lot of crap. Kiddie crap. Not like "oh Nintendo is for 8 year olds" . Movie games, cartoon games. I wonder if these sell? They seem to cover up all the good games that are out for the system. Usually these seem reserved for when a system is dead.


this gen I'm going to get Wii and PS3. I just need both. The only thing keeping me back is a assload of PS2 games I still have to play. I want to beat a majority of them before I move on to PS3.
 
[quote name='sarausagi']No, the real problem is that the original X-Box was cheaper than the Wii, which is weird, because the original X-box had an 8 GB hard drive, an equivalent graphic core, roughly the same amount of memory, and a somewhat weaker processor. Yet it was $299 half a decade ago, and $199 a few months after! Even with the Wii remote in consideration, the Wii should not have been more than $199. So it's strange, people complained about the 360's graphics when it was released for $400, and people complain about the PS3, but somehow no one complains about the Wii...when it is as guilty of as many faults as its counterparts.[/QUOTE]

THANK YOU!

It's perfectly fine that Nintedo decided to omit certain features to 'cut costs'. They take out DVD, Hi-Def, and a HDD to 'save costs'. No big deal. But where does those 'saved costs' go? Straight in Nintendo's pockets. Yet Nintendo is still viewed as the 'good' company this gen, for some strange reason. I'm not fond of any of the big three companies, myself, I just can't see why everyone loves them so much.

Both the GCN and N64 were able to keep up, hardware-wise, with the competition and those were released at $199. Now, this gen, they decide to go for a 'cheaper' system that is actually their most expensive in a while. Somehow, it ends up being only marginally cheaper than the 360 core, while being vastly inferior hardware-wise.
 
I'm sorry, did the Xbox have built in wifi?

Or an entire new controller system?

I mean I guess it did. Except not.

And face facts - to the general public, a system is a system, and the games are the games. People want to play Wii Sports and see a 250 price tag, then see Gears of War next to 400. And they just sort of bottom-line it out at that point that 250 is 150 less than 400, because they are looking at what they can play on the system.

You know, which used to be the only thing that mattered. Not a bunch of tech specs people orgasming over like it kept them warm at night and promised to call the next morning, because it too felt something special.
 
[quote name='daroga']Ah, Wii envy. I understand. :grouphug:[/QUOTE]

Care to justify the Wii's price for us? Because, I clearly do not see the justification for it.
 
[quote name='Strell']I'm sorry, did the Xbox have built in wifi?

Or an entire new controller system?

I mean I guess it did. Except not.[/QUOTE]

The xbox was released 5 years ago. I would think that costs of all the hardware would've gone down significantly since then. If the Wii was released alongside the xbox1, I could see your point.
 
I honestly don't get the "fun" factor of the Wii. When I played it I didn't find it any more enjoyable than any other system I own, in fact, after playing Sonic and Prince of Persia I found it to be less enjoyable.

You may say that the fun is with Wii Sports or something similar to that, but I didn't find that game to be anything out of the ordinary.

Does the Wii have fun games though? Of course. But I think the "fun" factor of it is blown WAY out of proportion.
 
[quote name='Strell']And face facts - to the general public, a system is a system, and the games are the games. People want to play Wii Sports and see a 250 price tag, then see Gears of War next to 400. And they just sort of bottom-line it out at that point that 250 is 150 less than 400, because they are looking at what they can play on the system.

You know, which used to be the only thing that mattered. Not a bunch of tech specs people orgasming over like it kept them warm at night and promised to call the next morning, because it too felt something special.[/QUOTE]

I'm not complaining about the Wii being underpowered. I'm complaining about Nintendo constantly reiterating the fact that they don't want to compete with power to SAVE COSTS, yet the Wii is one of their most expensive systems yet, and is only marginally cheaper than the 360 core. Be as underpowered as you want, I don't care, just price yourself accordingly.
 
[quote name='dpatel']I'm not complaining about the Wii being underpowered. I'm complaining about Nintendo constantly reiterating the fact that they don't want to compete with power to SAVE COSTS, yet the Wii is one of their most expensive systems yet, and is only marginally cheaper than the 360 core. Be as underpowered as you want, I don't care, just price yourself accordingly.[/quote]It's a business thing. If you can price it at $250, you sell it at $250. I don't approve as a consumer, but you don't think Sony would price the PS3 at $1000 to post a profit if they thought people would buy it at $1000? They didn't "undercharge" at $600 so that people would like them.

If you really want some sort of general justification of the price, well, the remote + nunchuk = $60 and Wii Sports = whatever they would sell the game for by itself, $10-$20? So the system itself would only retail for $170 or so? Which if you add in a $30 GCN controller, would be the same $200 that the Cube retailed for. Yes, 5 years later, but with all the extras.

And I'm pretty sure that Nintendo did save me $150 by not making a 720p capable system that costs $400.

I'm starting to find it absolutely hilarious that we are almost exactly replicating arguments from 6 months ago when people thought the Wii was going to wash. Simply stunning.
 
Then maybe what you should do is offer up a solution to make it cheaper, rather than saying "I WANT IT TO BE CHEAPER!" since all that does it make you look like a whiny bitch.

For example, Miyamoto said one of the biggest costs was the flash RAM in the system, which is only 512 megs, and seems to be only used for saving information (VC games, saves, Address book, etc). Yet the system has an SD card reader on the front of the system, and most people have slid 2 gig cards into it. So they could have saved themselves 20 bucks (I imagine) and taken the flash out entirely and just shipped each system with a 512 meg card, OR sold it for $225 and said "you really need a memory card for this system."

THAT'S a solution, not just useless bitching. Yet I'm pretty sure EVEN if they'd done that, they'd probably still sell it at 250, because hey - another 25 bucks per systems times 10 million is quite a nice figure.

However, if you think for a second for that the R&D costs of the controller aren't going into the cost of the system itself, you are mad as a hatter. Or, for that matter, R&D on Wii Sports. And as much as you want to sit there and complain and moan and bitch about how those things don't get factored in, I gaurantee you that they are getting factored in, and I guess everything that happens after that is - again - useless bitching.

You call it an expensive system? I call the iPod an expensive MP3 player, and that there are tons of alternatives. Yet it consistently outsells all of its competition based on hipness and looks. And at some point, no matter how much I can factually point out that they should sell it 50 bucks cheaper, they aren't going to, because capitalism has taken over at that point.

Maybe you should explain to me why an internal hard drive on the 360 costs 100 bucks for 20 damn gigs, when I can get 250 for around 70-80 if I look around hard enough.

Right. Because they are in this to make money too.
 
[quote name='botticus']It's a business thing. If you can price it at $250, you sell it at $250. I don't approve as a consumer, but you don't think Sony would price the PS3 at $1000 to post a profit if they thought people would buy it at $1000? They didn't "undercharge" at $600 so that people would like them.[/QUOTE]

Yea, as a company, I don't blame them for doing it. Had I been in that position, I would've taken advantage of the higher priced PS3, and priced myself at about the same price. I just don't understand people who justify the $250 price tag as consumers.

[quote name='botticus']If you really want some sort of general justification of the price, well, the remote + nunchuk = $60 and Wii Sports = whatever they would sell the game for by itself, $10-$20? So the system itself would only retail for $170 or so? Which if you add in a $30 GCN controller, would be the same $200 that the Cube retailed for. Yes, 5 years later, but with all the extras.[/QUOTE]

You're comparing to the GCN 5 years ago. That GCN hardware was much more expensive 5 years ago. Right now, the GCN retails for $99.99 (I think it might come with a game, or that may be a limited time sorta thing).
 
[quote name='dpatel']Yea, as a company, I don't blame them for doing it. Had I been in that position, I would've taken advantage of the higher priced PS3, and priced myself at about the same price. I just don't understand people who justify the $250 price tag as consumers.



You're comparing to the GCN 5 years ago. That GCN hardware was much more expensive 5 years ago. Right now, the GCN retails for $99.99 (I think it might come with a game, or that may be a limited time sorta thing).[/quote]Which is fine. Throw in the flash memory, SD/USB interfaces, wi-fi, etc, I don't see how you can't find a $100 mark-up in there somewhere.

So what do we take away from this thread? That the response to "What happens if the Wii utterly dominates this generation of gaming?" is "I hope it doesn't because it will somehow negatively impact my life"? Cause people stopped offering up any discussion to that point long ago.
 
[quote name='Strell']Then maybe what you should do is offer up a solution to make it cheaper, rather than saying "I WANT IT TO BE CHEAPER!" since all that does it make you look like a whiny bitch.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry if logically looking at the Wii's price, as a consumer, makes me a 'whiney bitch'. I realize why they did it, as a company. I would've done the same thing. I just don't see why consumers can justify that price.

[quote name='Strell']For example, Miyamoto said one of the biggest costs was the flash RAM in the system, which is only 512 megs, and seems to be only used for saving information (VC games, saves, Address book, etc). Yet the system has an SD card reader on the front of the system, and most people have slid 2 gig cards into it. So they could have saved themselves 20 bucks (I imagine) and taken the flash out entirely and just shipped each system with a 512 meg card, OR sold it for $225 and said "you really need a memory card for this system."

THAT'S a solution, not just useless bitching. Yet I'm pretty sure EVEN if they'd done that, they'd probably still sell it at 250, because hey - another 25 bucks per systems times 10 million is quite a nice figure.

However, if you think for a second for that the R&D costs of the controller aren't going into the cost of the system itself, you are mad as a hatter. Or, for that matter, R&D on Wii Sports. And as much as you want to sit there and complain and moan and bitch about how those things don't get factored in, I gaurantee you that they are getting factored in, and I guess everything that happens after that is - again - useless bitching.[/quote]

What solution would I need to offer them? They are the only company that is selling their system for a profit. So, if they were to take MS and Sony's approach and sell it for a loss, that right there would lower the price enough for me.

You call it an expensive system? I call the iPod an expensive MP3 player, and that there are tons of alternatives. Yet it consistently outsells all of its competition based on hipness and looks. And at some point, no matter how much I can factually point out that they should sell it 50 bucks cheaper, they aren't going to, because capitalism has taken over at that point.
Click to expand...

I agree the ipod is a rip off. Probably my most hated product. I choose not to buy their products. Like Nintendo though, I understand why they do it. I was mainly directing my comments at those who feel the price is justified. I completely understand why Nintendo priced themselves at $250. It makes sense, and it obviously works. As consumers, though, I can't think of why anyone would justify it.

Maybe you should explain to me why an internal hard drive on the 360 costs 100 bucks for 20 damn gigs, when I can get 250 for around 70-80 if I look around hard enough.

Right. Because they are in this to make money too.
Click to expand...

What does the 360s HDD have to do with this argument. To me, this makes you look a little insecure about the Wii by bringing up an unrelated matter such as this. I could be wrong though. But, I don't agree with the 20GB HDD either. It would've been much better to allow support for any 3rd party HDD.
 
[quote name='botticus']Which is fine. Throw in the flash memory, SD/USB interfaces, wi-fi, etc, I don't see how you can't find a $100 mark-up in there somewhere.[/QUOTE]

The premium PS3 added all of those plus an extra 40GB for $100, so yea, I think the mark-up would be a bit less. And, I don't think we should really be counting the controller as a factor, seeing as how all consoles include controllers.
 
You should have just written "I'm going to totally ignore what you say and then say the same thing I said already" in that post.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Are you serious? Have you played Madden on the Wii and played it on the 360? It is better than or equal to on the Wii in a lot of reviews and from personal experience. Im not going to speak for others but I have a feeling that a lot feel the same who have played it.

I think this whole "serious" gamer nonsense really does need to stop. What is a serious gamer? A person who plays RPG's? A person who plays Shooters? What is a serious gamer? Is a serious gamer defined by someone who plays lots of games? If so, I have seen TONS of younger kids who play a TON during the summer and weekends. Does this qualify them as a "serious" gamer, and if so, does that make the Wii for serious gamers? It is a subjective term that really is meaningless.

Not really sure why I am responding to your post though as it is complete nonsense. The PS2 a high end machine? Not at all compared to the cube and xbox. Buying a wii is NOTHING like buying a handheld system for obvious reasons. I'll stop now and stop responding to useless posts.[/QUOTE]


What I meant by The Wii is like buying a handheld system, is due to it being cheap. The Wii costs the same as the psp did when it came out, and it has a free game.

People who're buying the Wii, may not buy (or play) more than 10 games for it. Just like w/ the SNES, it appealed to mainstream people, but not everone bought a lot of games. A serious gamer, will be the one that buys more than just one or two games, and really get a collection 15, 20, games

The Wii is going to be the first system for a lot of children who are going to turn out to be that new 'serious gamer.' However, people who are already serious and buy lots of games and multiple systems aren't going to use the Wii for their primary system.
 
The damn thing isnt even FOR everyone. There are options this time around depending on what the individual consumer values.

Its too bad they couldnt get away with just making it some weird dock port for the gamecube, so we wouldnt have to have this discussion.
 
[quote name='Strell']You should have just written "I'm going to totally ignore what you say and then say the same thing I said already" in that post.[/QUOTE]

If you don't feel like responding, that's fine, just say it.

I don't think I was as clear with my original post, which is why I felt the need to reiterate my point. I am not criticizing Nintendo for their price point decision. As a business, it was smart. I am criticizing consumers who feel it is a 'fair' price. Judging from your post, you seemed to think I was faulting Nintendo, as a business, for the price. That was most likely my fault for initially being unclear, which is why I decided to repeat myself.
 
[quote name='dpatel']You're comparing to the GCN 5 years ago. That GCN hardware was much more expensive 5 years ago. Right now, the GCN retails for $99.99 (I think it might come with a game, or that may be a limited time sorta thing).[/quote]
[quote name='"Iwata"']...it looks like some people are misunderstanding that Nintendo is not incorporating state-of-the-art technologies into its products. It is not true. Just as an example, we are using the state-of-the-art technologies to realize the compact-sized Wii console with low power consumption.[/quote]
It's not like they're using the exact same boards as the GCN. You can't validly make that comparison.
 
Nintendo is an expensive company, they don't price drop games (example - DS Games); even when they do great. The Wii is overpriced, and the accessories. You can't even us the Wii as a DVD Player... not that its that important, but damn for 249.99...

The Wii is the new Cyberhome and COBY.. of the video game industry.... I guess that's not so bad.
 
[quote name='dpatel'] I am criticizing consumers who feel it is a 'fair' price. [/QUOTE]

The fact that you can't understand this is about THE dumbest statement you are saying (repeatedly, I might add) is really fascinating, because I'm betting you'll turn aruond and say "Omfg why can't you see the PS3's price is a value!!??!?!" the very next minute.

You're telling people who have bought and own the system are wrong beacuse they think the price is at an acceptable point, but you don't, with the absolute operative word being you, implying that is your opinion.

Wow.

I can't even begin to think about all the people on eBay selling the Wii for 300-500 bucks, and having absolutely no shortage of customers willing to pay that amount.

I mean that must make you wet your pants every time.

Also, it's good to see Thomas96 back in action. It's not everyday you can find living proof that we've managed to successfully stifle evolution in the human race.
 
[quote name='Strell']You should have just written "I'm going to totally ignore what you say and then say the same thing I said already" in that post.[/QUOTE]

What response were you looking for?

I already explained that, as a business, it was a good decision. I was just questioning the consumers who were also backing this price point.

You asked me to come up with a solution to 'cut costs'. It's pretty simple. Get rid of the unnecessary Wii Sports pack in and sell it for a loss. Just my opinion.

Then you continued with your strawman fallacies and complained about the irrelevant ipod and 360 HDD.
 
Damn, that sentence must have really gotten under your skin for you to have to make two separate posts about it. Especially when both posts are just tired reiterations of each other.

At this point you can't even make up your mind. Nintendo is a jerk for selling it for 250, but people are stupid for paying that price for it.

I imagine you aren't very happy at all whenever you walk into an electronics store of any kind.
 
The Wii's a fad.
The 360 is just MS' attempt taking over a market, then fucking it up horribly
The PS3 is too expensive lol blu-ray

Everyone go buy a phantom.
 
[quote name='dpatel']

What solution would I need to offer them? They are the only company that is selling their system for a profit. So, if they were to take MS and Sony's approach and sell it for a loss, that right there would lower the price enough for me.

[/quote]

Im surprised nobody pulled this statement out earlier. Your solution is to tell them to lower the price so they can LOSE MONEY like MS and Sony did and are?

Remind me NEVER to buy any stock for any company you or any relatives are involved with or work for.
 
[quote name='Strell']The fact that you can't understand this is about THE dumbest statement you are saying (repeatedly, I might add) is really fascinating, because I'm betting you'll turn aruond and say "Omfg why can't you see the PS3's price is a value!!??!?!" the very next minute.

You're telling people who have bought and own the system are wrong beacuse they think the price is at an acceptable point, but you don't, with the absolute operative word being you, implying that is your opinion.

Wow.

I can't even begin to think about all the people on eBay selling the Wii for 300-500 bucks, and having absolutely no shortage of customers willing to pay that amount.

I mean that must make you wet your pants every time.

Also, it's good to see Thomas96 back in action. It's not everyday you can find living proof that we've managed to successfully stifle evolution in the human race.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying they are wrong at all. I never really said that. Obviously, the system is worth more to some than others. I know what demand is, and I realize it is subjective. But what we are actually given, as far as hardware is concerned, for our money is objective and it is clear that the Wii is overpriced. I'm sure everyone who buys their Wii and is currently happy with it, will get their money's worth out of it. I loved my PS2 last gen, and it was definitely worth more than the $300 I paid for, considering how many hours I clocked into the thing. That doesn't mean I'll gladly cough up more than what I know the hardware is worth and be happy about it.

[quote name='Strell']Damn, that sentence must have really gotten under your skin for you to have to make two separate posts about it. Especially when both posts are just tired reiterations of each other.[/quote]

I don't see why you think this is affecting me on a personal level. I'm not exactly sure why you felt the need to call me a 'whiney bitch', during a debate.

At this point you can't even make up your mind. Nintendo is a jerk for selling it for 250, but people are stupid for paying that price for it.

I imagine you aren't very happy at all whenever you walk into an electronics store of any kind.
Click to expand...

Not really. Consoles are really the only business where we have hardware being sold for less than retail (except for the Wii), which is why I have different expectations for consoles, than I do for other electronics.
 
[quote name='schuerm26']Im surprised nobody pulled this statement out earlier. Your solution is to tell them to lower the price so they can LOSE MONEY like MS and Sony did and are?

Remind me NEVER to buy any stock for any company you or any relatives are involved with or work for.[/QUOTE]

Yes, because since Sony and MS sell systems at a loss, they dont' bring in any kind of profit whatsoever. Systems are the sole source of profit for all gaming companies.

Yes I realize the xbox never turned a profit, but MS was willing to make that sacrifice to get their foot in the door. The PS2 sold for a loss and still manage to make Sony a good amount of money.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']It's not like they're using the exact same boards as the GCN. You can't validly make that comparison.[/QUOTE]

Of course. I didn't mean to make it sound like that. I'd say they are close enough in power that it would be safe to assume they would be somewhat close to each other in costs.
 
[quote name='Apossum']The Wii's a fad.
The 360 is just MS' attempt taking over a market, then fucking it up horribly
The PS3 is too expensive lol blu-ray

Everyone go buy a phantom.[/quote]Possum, once again you are mean to the fanboy in everyone.

:(
 
[quote name='daroga']Possum, once again you are mean to the fanboy in everyone.

:([/quote]Sadly, Apossum's comments in this thread are like Sonic in your sig. Overlooked.
 
I think one of the big things everyone's missing in the price is the R&D behind the Wiimote setup. That thing didn't just appear out of nowhere. Microsoft and Sony got to either share costs with another product (the Cell and Blu-Ray) or just say "GIVE ME MORE POWER!"

Nintendo actually had to put some thought into the console in their attempt to shake everything up. Is $250 too much? I'd say so. But with it selling like it is, can you really blame them for it? I'd say they're probably leaving money on the table. They probably could've charged $300 for the thing and had it sell the same way up to this point, and then cut it down to $250 when things even out.
 
[quote name='daroga']I think one of the big things everyone's missing in the price is the R&D behind the Wiimote setup. That thing didn't just appear out of nowhere. Microsoft and Sony got to either share costs with another product (the Cell and Blu-Ray) or just say "GIVE ME MORE POWER!"

Nintendo actually had to put some thought into the console in their attempt to shake everything up. Is $250 too much? I'd say so. But with it selling like it is, can you really blame them for it? I'd say they're probably leaving money on the table. They probably could've charged $300 for the thing and had it sell the same way up to this point, and then cut it down to $250 when things even out.[/QUOTE]

Well, all companies do incur R&D costs. It isn't as simple as 'adding more power' to the PS2 and Xbox. But yea, Nintendo most likely had the most in R&D, although I really have no idea if that is true, and to what degree. I'm not sure that information would be available publicly anyway.

And yea, in their situation, I would've done the same thing. As soon as the PS3 was announced at $600, MS and Ninty knew they could comfortably keep a higher than normal price. Had the PS3 not been as expensive, I'm sure we would've seen a cheaper Wii, and I doubt the Elite would even exist.
 
Is there a way for a video game company to have up-to-date hardware, and be able to sell their system for a profit from day one?
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Is there a way for a video game company to have up-to-date hardware, and be able to sell their system for a profit from day one?[/QUOTE]

It would probably fail miserably.
 
Speaking of Daroga's sig, I think it deserves a round of applause, hear hear!

as for this thread, consider it officially jacked. I hoped the discussion would be formed under the assumption of "what if" nintendo was the leader this generation, not an arguement looking for every possible way that either they couldn't, or don't deserve to.

Too many good (and bad) points being made here to spend an hour picking apart and commenting on. We can definetly see how polarized the market is going to be this generation, between the Wii lovers and the HD gaming group. What I think is the real telling thing is that there's Wii lovers, but there's also HD gamers who own a Wii. If both PS3 and 360 buyers buy a Wii, isn't Nintendo the one really winning out?

And as for the price, Nintendo has done an excellent job finding a price that people perceive to be valuable, while still giving them some healthy profits on each system sold. That's the absolute goal of pricing strategy, and you can't bemoan them for not selling to us at a loss, just because the other companies can't get it right.

Few people would feel that a $600 PS3 is a valuable purchase, regardless of what bells and whistles come with it. The 360 elite is really pushing people's expectations as well. It's odd that both of these companies can't wake up to what the market's reaction to their price is saying. It's saying "we want more reasonable hardware for a more reasonable price" quite clearly, and Sony/MS is not hearing that message.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']Is there a way for a video game company to have up-to-date hardware, and be able to sell their system for a profit from day one?[/quote]Unfortunately, not really. People aren't willing to pay the same or more for a gaming console than they do for a computer, because the consoles are essentially less-functional computers. And computers represent the up-to-date hardware sold for profit.
 
[quote name='jer7583']And as for the price, Nintendo has done an excellent job finding a price that people perceive to be valuable, while still giving them some healthy profits on each system sold. That's the absolute goal of pricing strategy, and you can't bemoan them for not selling to us at a loss, just because the other companies can't get it right.

Few people would feel that a $600 PS3 is a valuable purchase, regardless of what bells and whistles come with it. The 360 elite is really pushing people's expectations as well. It's odd that both of these companies can't wake up to what the market's reaction to their price is saying. It's saying "we want more reasonable hardware for a more reasonable price" quite clearly, and Sony/MS is not hearing that message.[/QUOTE]

Well, you can't just lump everyone into one category. Obviously the Wii has hit a good price point with its popularity, but that strategy isn't for everyone. Some people would rather pay more to get more (hardware wise). And, in the long run, Sony and MSs consoles will looks like a much better value (also hardware wise), so while, initially, Sony and MS are alienating a lot consumers early on, it could pay off in the end. While the wii and its cheap price sure are popular, that isn't for everyone. If the Wii does end up demolishing the PS3 and 360 this gen, then yea, I would agree with your second paragraph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top