Wii U poor sales confirmed BY NINTENDO! Blasterman poor troll confirmed BY BLASTERMAN

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='Deader2818']People seem to forgot how little HD graphics meant at the start considering hardly anyone owned HD tvs.

If they did matter, the Wii wouldnt have taken off as much as it did.[/QUOTE]

While there is more truth to this than is usually conceded, the Wii certainly never excelled at certain types of very popular games.

Those would be most sports and most online FPS games. The Wii's online system was vastly inferior to the 360/PS3s. While Tiger Woods golf did well on the system, no other sports game sold really well there and while the Wii could competently do FPS games, they couldnt do anything with multi-player. There are more than a few comparisons that could be made between Metroid Prime and Halo, but Halo always sold more and part of the reason was the well made multiplayer.
 
[quote name='Deader2818']People seem to forgot how little HD graphics meant at the start considering hardly anyone owned HD tvs.

If they did matter, the Wii wouldnt have taken off as much as it did.[/QUOTE]

The Wii sold to a new market of consumer that happened to not care about graphics. The 360 was already a huge hit(especially with the gaming enthusiast) by the time the Wii came out.
 
[quote name='Deader2818']People seem to forgot how little HD graphics meant at the start considering hardly anyone owned HD tvs.[/QUOTE]

I think you are underestimating the HD kiosk showing off CoD2.

"Hardly anyone owned HD tvs" during the Xbox/PS2 generation. Plenty of people owned HDtvs by the time the 360 launched.
 
[quote name='Corvin']I think you are underestimating the HD kiosk showing off CoD2.

"Hardly anyone owned HD tvs" during the Xbox/PS2 generation. Plenty of people owned HDtvs by the time the 360 launched.[/QUOTE]

A 32" Sony HDTV cost $2,000 in the summer of 2005. A lot of people didnt have HDTV's then. Also, 1080p was only starting to be rolled out. Almost everything was 720p.
 
Still tons of people out there without an HDTV, the quality on some of them is pretty bad, especially the older cheap ones. Westinghouse TV's can break in 4 months and its not an isolated incident either... I didn't get a HDTV till 2011! You can get CRT TV's for free or cheap, while it would be hard to go back to a CRT I would take it over a crappy LCD any day.

The quality on HDTV's is getting much better on the cheaper models, at least I think it is, with LED tech you should at least be able to see the TV from most viewing angles. But they still can break fast due to cheap parts and shoddy soldering and cold solder joints. Even cheap CRT TV's used to last forever, at least 5-10 years, now the worst HDTV could break in a couple months.

I don't think I knew anyone who had a HDTV in 2005, I know plenty of houses that don't even have one HDTV still.
 
I didn't get an HDTV until Winter of 2010, and before then, the only people I knew that had an HDTV that weren't rich were my brother and one friend (which both were bought specifically for a PS3). By 2011 though, almost all my friends and family had an HDTV, so from my limited sampling, I don't think the HDTV barrier to the general masses was broken down until that time, at best 2008-2009. Certainly not 2005.
 
I wonder how many people have 1080p TVs, as opposed to 720p. Both of our TVs are 720p. I don't forsee upgrading until one of them breaks.
 
[quote name='Billytwoshoes']I didn't get an HDTV until Winter of 2010, and before then, the only people I knew that had an HDTV that weren't rich were my brother and one friend (which both were bought specifically for a PS3). By 2011 though, almost all my friends and family had an HDTV, so from my limited sampling, I don't think the HDTV barrier to the general masses was broken down until that time, at best 2008-2009. Certainly not 2005.[/QUOTE]

Wow compare a 32" 720p lcd tv in 2006 to this guy, 55" 1080p 3d led for 1,100.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00752R9SM/ref=gno_cart_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
Actually that's a really good price...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Where the hell do you people live and shop? :lol: Everyone I knew had HD sets by 2005... and not one of my family members or friends could be considered "rich." Yes a lot of them were 720p at the time, but that's what broadcasts are and the best the xbox could do.

For reference I paid just over $2000 for a 57" Sony 1080p set in 2002. I got it on sale, but still it wasn't astronomically expensive.
 
I think you are just not remembering the market correct at all.

hell I worked at Target when 360 launched and they only had a few HD tvs for sale and all were pricey.

06 I was at Best Buy and then they had more HD TVs but even then, they were pricey as hell and they still had a lot of regular TVs.
 
[quote name='Corvin']Where the hell do you people live and shop? :lol: Everyone I knew had HD sets by 2005... and not one of my family members or friends could be considered "rich." Yes a lot of them were 720p at the time, but that's what broadcasts are and the best the xbox could do.

For reference I paid just over $2000 for a 57" Sony 1080p set in 2002. I got it on sale, but still it wasn't astronomically expensive.[/QUOTE]

uh...1080p didn't even really come out until 2006. That TV I described that was $2,000 was the 2005 model. The 2006 model which was just released was 1080p and cost $3,000. I know because I bought that $2,000 tv at the time.

edit: I originally said 2005 but meant 2006. Went back and fixed it.
 
[quote name='Corvin']Where the hell do you people live and shop? :lol: Everyone I knew had HD sets by 2005... and not one of my family members or friends could be considered "rich." Yes a lot of them were 720p at the time, but that's what broadcasts are and the best the xbox could do.

For reference I paid just over $2000 for a 57" Sony 1080p set in 2002. I got it on sale, but still it wasn't astronomically expensive.[/QUOTE]
Continuing off topic (kinda), but you didn't need to be rich to own an HDTV in the early to mid 2000's (everyone has their own vices they prioritize their funds towards), its just those that have more money than they know what to do with tend to buy the latest and greatest without blinking an eye, so I didn't count those individuals.

Remember the whole Analog to Digital broadcast switch in 2009? I know that many people jumped on those converter boxes because they (like myself) were still using rabbit ears with their analog sets, and this didn't count those who had cable, unaffected by the switch.

Now big screen (not widescreen), analog, non-HDTVs, they were popular in 2005, I knew plenty of people who had those, and now they rapidly populate the local Goodwills.
 
[quote name='Billytwoshoes']Continuing off topic (kinda), but you didn't need to be rich to own an HDTV in the early to mid 2000's (everyone has their own vices they prioritize their funds towards), its just those that have more money than they know what to do with tend to buy the latest and greatest without blinking an eye, so I didn't count those individuals.

Remember the whole Analog to Digital broadcast switch in 2009? I know that many people jumped on those converter boxes because they (like myself) were still using rabbit ears with their analog sets, and this didn't count those who had cable, unaffected by the switch.

Now big screen (not widescreen), analog, non-HDTVs, they were popular in 2005, I knew plenty of people who had those, and now they rapidly populate the local Goodwills.[/QUOTE]

Those TV's you're talking about were 1080i I believe. They were also REALLY expensive when people were buying them.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']Those TV's you're talking about were 1080i I believe. They were also REALLY expensive when people were buying them.[/QUOTE]
Not the DLP rear projection TVs which had HD capabilities, just standard component level SDTVs.
 
[quote name='Billytwoshoes']Not the DLP rear projection TVs which had HD capabilities, just standard component level SDTVs.[/QUOTE]

IIRC, those TVs were 1080i, and advertised for sports.
 
[quote name='elessar123']IIRC, those TVs were 1080i, and advertised for sports.[/QUOTE]
They also weighed a billion pounds and there was no real content at the time for them. I only knew of one person that had one of those and he WAS rich...
 
[quote name='moothemagiccow']Yeah but your idea of rich just means they can afford to spend $300 on a Wii U[/QUOTE]
No, that's my idea of stupid.
You have no idea what my idea of rich is.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']They also weighed a billion pounds and there was no real content at the time for them. I only knew of one person that had one of those and he WAS rich...[/QUOTE]
I had a few friends in college who had the big screen CRT rear projection TVs, and they bought them second hand for pretty cheap. Maybe there is a disconnect here, but I don't remember the standard sets being expensive by 2005.

[quote name='moothemagiccow']Yeah but your idea of rich just means they can afford to spend $300 on a Wii U[/QUOTE]
This was mentioned earlier in this thread, but Nintendo hasn't marketed the Wii U as the latest and greatest, as the tablet push makes this seem identical to the iPads they already have. With the Wii, it was a novel concept that there wasn't any commercial equivalent to, so everyone jumped on that, not so much with the Wii U.

The 'well to do' have the money to spend, but Nintendo didn't convince them the Wii U was a must have, and instead focused its efforts on the traditional gamer with its software line-up.
 
[quote name='Deader2818']I think you are just not remembering the market correct at all.[/QUOTE]

I owned the Owned the Sony KP-57WV600. I was mistaken it wasn't 1080p, but 1080i. I bought it a few months prior to my marriage, which puts my purchase in late '02. I had a friend that bought the same exact tv the same day, and two more friends that bought 55" Mitsubishi sets shortly thereafter(after hosting Halo lan parties). IIRC, it had a $2500 SRP. I think the discrepancy in price you are remembering is whether they were HD ready or built in. The sets with HD built in were far more expensive. The one I bought was HD ready, i.e. just needed a tuner(couldn't just plug in the coax from the wall) or an antenna, hence the lower price of entry. My brother jumped on board when the 360 came out (2005) and parents shortly after.

No there weren't a whole lot of HD viewing options at the time (mostly sports) but I had Voom (had the most HD channels at the time with 21) for a couple of years before they went under. I still miss some of the Voom channels. It sucked balls having an SD TiVo not being able to record in HD. Had to anxiously await the Series 3 HD TiVo in 2006. #firstworldproblems

And yes, the thing was a beast. Probably weighed 400lbs and was awkward. Just got rid of it last year after the screen went out. My buddy moved 3-4 times while he had that set(set was always in a non-walk out basement) and after helping move it the first couple times, I bailed on the next couple moves. :lol: I moved once, 1st floor to walk out basement. If we sold the house before it died, the TV was staying.

[quote name='Billytwoshoes']Continuing off topic (kinda), but you didn't need to be rich to own an HDTV in the early to mid 2000's (everyone has their own vices they prioritize their funds towards), .[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. I had some friends wasting money going out and getting drunk every other weekend while I saved mine to get an HDTV. I wanted a 16:9 HD set for movies and gaming. Priorities. :)
 
[quote name='Corvin']
I agree with this. I had some friends wasting money going out and getting drunk every other weekend while I saved mine to get an HDTV. I wanted a 16:9 HD set for movies and gaming. Priorities. :)[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I got one of those Sony behemoth console TVs in 2003 when we moved to our new house. The house is already out-dated because it came with a "cut-out" in the mantle to fit one of those on-the-floor console TVs. It finally gave out on us about 2 years ago and now the kids use the cutout for storing their toys. The new TV is up higher on the mantle.

But that Sony was a 55" widescreen and was 1080i. It was a CRT rear-projection HDTV, which was the only thing semi-affordable at the time. I think Plasmas were just coming out then but cost $10,000 or so. I never even hooked an HD signal up to it until I got a 360 in 2006 or so (whenever the Elite first came out). When I got my DLP TV for upstairs I found out just how crappy the HD was on that old Sony. While it was HD, it didn't have a great picture. At least I got it for the bargain-basement price of just $1300 (in 2003, remember). And that included free delivery from Circuit City.

When it went bad (one of the colors got out of alignment - it was probably fixable but not worth the trouble any more) I had a neighbor help me load it into our minivan and brought it to the once-yearly free electronics recycling place. It was by far the best thing being dropped off there. I was kind of hoping someone might salvage it but if not, oh well...

But yeah, I mostly bought it just to have a big widecreen TV and not so much for the HD. I always just had regular cable hooked up to it otherwise. And before the 360, it was just Gamecube and PS2. But it was easier to see from the kitchen than our old TV would have been. But going back to Sara's point about the reliability of those old CRT TVs - the TV that it replaced was a 27" Sony CRT we got in 1994. We are still using that in our bedroom to this day ;).
 
I bought my first (and only) HDTV in 2004 - a Panasonic 42" plasma that only does 1080i (which is why I never use my PS3). I paid $5,500 for it and that is after 10% off for the Best Buy account I opened up. I paid it off over the course of 2 years (interest free). I was the only person I knew that had an HDTV at the time and basically for the next 2 years people were completely blown away by it when they came over. There were like 3 or 4 HD channels available - PBS and some other crap. Still, no regrets at all.
 
[quote name='Javery']I bought my first (and only) HDTV in 2004 - a Panasonic 42" plasma that only does 1080i (which is why I never use my PS3).[/QUOTE]

Ah, yes - this is why I didn't get a PS3 for a couple years. It would have only shown in SD on my 1080i TV (for most games anyway). I had forgotten how pissed off I was at Sony at the time and that is why I got a 360 as my first HD console.
 
[quote name='io']
When it went bad (one of the colors got out of alignment - it was probably fixable but not worth the trouble any more) I had a neighbor help me load it into our minivan and brought it to the once-yearly free electronics recycling place. It was by far the best thing being dropped off there. I was kind of hoping someone might salvage it but if not, oh well...[/QUOTE]

That's what I did, recycling donation truck. Also good to know I wasn't crazy on my pricing. With regular 4:3 sets going for $1000 at the time, $1,300-$2,000 for HD was affordable.

My colors also got out of alignment. Did some googling and apparently it was a common problem with those Sony floor models. Repair centers wanted $700-$800 to come out and repair it. Obviously I wasn't about to pony up for that. Poked around google some more to see if fixing it myself was feasible. Lo and behold, it's a 5 minute fix if you know how to work a philips screwdriver. The hardest part was taking off the front panel. Once open there are 3 screws that adjust the lamps. Take the philips to the one out of whack and turn it 10° and voila. Fixed. Got me a few extra years of life out of it before it went out for good.

[quote name='Javery']I bought my first (and only) HDTV in 2004 - a Panasonic 42" plasma that only does 1080i (which is why I never use my PS3). [/QUOTE]

That reminds me, I had to pony up MORE to get a set with 720p(because I knew that's what the xbox ran at). For whatever reason Sony was going with 1080i but if you wanted 720p you had to get the higher model. Now it's fucking backwards on modern sets.
 
[quote name='Corvin'] Lo and behold, it's a 5 minute fix if you know how to work a philips screwdriver. The hardest part was taking off the front panel. Once open there are 3 screws that adjust the lamps. Take the philips to the one out of whack and turn it 10° and voila. Fixed. Got me a few extra years of life out of it before it went out for good.[/QUOTE]

I did just that and it made no difference on mine. I think my issue was a little more severe though. It went from being perfectly fine to having one color completely out of whack (like a ghost image 2-3 inches from where it should be). I found the "pots" (those old adjustable capacitors) and they did nothing. Oh well, it was time for a new TV anyway - I was glad I got rid of it because the picture on my Vizio 55" LED TV is SO much better. Though the remote was a piece of crap - but that's a different story...
 
[quote name='io']Ah, yes - this is why I didn't get a PS3 for a couple years. It would have only shown in SD on my 1080i TV (for most games anyway). I had forgotten how pissed off I was at Sony at the time and that is why I got a 360 as my first HD console.[/QUOTE]

Yup. This is still my situation. I've played Uncharted and God of War on my PS3. That's pretty much the list. I'm in the market for a 70"-80" LED though so I'm excited to finally get 1080p (and 720p, I guess).
 
[quote name='Blaster man']And to add insult to injury, only 4.6% of the 2,500 game developers that attended E3 are developing games for the Wii U.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/study-46-percent-of-developers-making-wii-u-games-6404615?[/QUOTE]

You are leaving out "Microsoft topped the interest list of the Big Three, with 13.2 percent of surveyed developers currently making games for the Xbox 360 and nearly 14 percent planning their next title for the platform. Sony came up just behind, with 13 percent releasing their current game for the system and 12.4 percent planning to ship their next title on the platform."

It's not like 95% are making games for the PS3/360.
 
I'm extremely interested to see how well the PS4 and new Xbox will sell this holiday given the state of the economy and the value of the 360/PS3.

In my opinion, those consoles will have titles even less appealing than the Wii U at launch (Mario vs Killzone) and I don't see them faring much or if at all better than the Wii U.

Really not surprising the Vita outsold the Wii U last week as it just had a price cut and a new game coming out (PSO2).
 
[quote name='Javery']You are leaving out "Microsoft topped the interest list of the Big Three, with 13.2 percent of surveyed developers currently making games for the Xbox 360 and nearly 14 percent planning their next title for the platform. Sony came up just behind, with 13 percent releasing their current game for the system and 12.4 percent planning to ship their next title on the platform."

It's not like 95% are making games for the PS3/360.[/QUOTE]

It didn't seem especially relevant. Most people are probably making games for iOS devices or PC's. If 13% are making Xbox 360 games but only 4.6% are making Wii games then that means that only one-third of console developers are developing for the Wii U which is a sorry state of affairs. There's nothing good for the Wii U in the numbers you listed though you're right that it looks less bad.


[quote name='antlp89']I'm extremely interested to see how well the PS4 and new Xbox will sell this holiday given the state of the economy and the value of the 360/PS3.

In my opinion, those consoles will have titles even less appealing than the Wii U at launch (Mario vs Killzone) and I don't see them faring much or if at all better than the Wii U.

Really not surprising the Vita outsold the Wii U last week as it just had a price cut and a new game coming out (PSO2).[/QUOTE]

Disagree. This isn't "mario" this is "new super mario bros". if this was Mario Galaxy then yeah I'd agree. My guess is that the 720 and PS4 will sell out during the holidays though that may be a smaller total number sold than the Wii U as they may not have as much inventory on the shelves. The Wii U met demand which means everyone that wanted one bought one. The 720 and PS4 may only have 1-2 million consoles out this year which would mean there's a shortage and that they could sell out but never reach the Wii U numbers.

To put it bluntly, only 3 million people in the world wanted a Wii U during the holidays at the price they were selling them at and with the games that were available. If the other consoles sell out the entire holiday season we'll never know how many people wanted them. I think this will happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love how you are already hedging your bet by saying that while they may not sell more than the Wii U they will have better launches by being sold out and not meeting demand. I love it.

For whatever reason, you have an unreasonable amount of glee in posting those bad numbers for Nintendo. Javery pointed out your bias pretty well there. Your folllow-up only emphasizes that. You didn't say in your original post that "only one-third of console developers are developing for the Wii U" (whch to me is a pretty good number, actually). You said "only 4.6% of the 2,500 game developers that attended E3 are developing games for the Wii U" which is a much more harsh statement. If you were just presenting "the facts" to us deluded Nintendo bots (as you so often claim) then you would have included the numbers for the other systems too.

(And just as an aside, while I try to provide a little balance for all the Nintendo-bashing on CAG I am by no means a Nintendo fanboy. I have barely played my Wii U and probably, in retrospect, could have waited till this Fall, or at least till Pikmin 3, to get one. But I don't regret the purchase. FYI, I've been playing the Vita almost exclusively the last month).
 
[quote name='io']I love how you are already hedging your bet by saying that while they may not sell more than the Wii U they will have better launches by being sold out and not meeting demand. I love it.

For whatever reason, you have an unreasonable amount of glee in posting those bad numbers for Nintendo. Javery pointed out your bias pretty well there. Your folllow-up only emphasizes that. You didn't say in your original post that "only one-third of console developers are developing for the Wii U" (whch to me is a pretty good number, actually). You said "only 4.6% of the 2,500 game developers that attended E3 are developing games for the Wii U" which is a much more harsh statement. if you were just presenting "news" to us deluded Nintendo bots (as you so often claim) then you would have included the numbers for the other systems too.[/QUOTE]

I was quoting the headline. I thought it was pretty unnecessary to point out that not all developers were console developers but I admit that it makes it sound worse and I've modified it in my follow-up. I have no problem with that...

As for your claim that I'm hedging, you consider it hedging by stating that if something sells out that it doesn't meet demand? Again, it seems a bit obvious but if I have 20 widget and you have 20,000 widget and you sell 18,000 but I sell 20 then we don't know what demand for my widgets were. All we know is that you sold more than I did. If my widgets continue to sell out for month after month and yours almost stop selling then that tells us something as well.
Again, I don't consider this hedging. It's like when people were comparing the Wii U release week sales to the 360 release sales, well yeah the Wii U sold more, it had more available on launch day than the 360 did. That doesn't mean that it had more demand as evidenced by it's poor sales after the holidays compared to the 360 being sold out for months.

As for my part, the poor sales on the Wii U are going to force them to lower the price (as I predict will happen) and I'll purchase it then. At this point I'm willing to buy it at a $50 price drop since my Wii's GPU is going out and I'm afraid to play Xenoblade on it right now. I'm still hoping for a $100 price drop since I'm cheap though.

edit: Oh yeah also have The Last Story and eventually Pandora's Tower to play on the Wii U once I buy it. So far there are no Wii U games I want and none of the games they've announced are interesting to me (Monster Hunter, Pikmin, etc).
 
Hey, that's great - I hope you enjoy it. At least Nintendo provides an easy way to transfer all your Wii content to the new system. Doesn't look like that will happen with the PS4/720. You might want to consider doing that before your Wii goes out completely. And then you can play the best game of the last 5-6 years without fear. To me all that is worth more than waiting for a possible $50 drop.

Couldn't you have gotten it $50 off from that Costco sale? I'm sure we'll see a few more sale/bundles before any price drop. That may be the way to go.
 
[quote name='io']Hey, that's great - I hope you enjoy it. At least Nintendo provides an easy way to transfer all your Wii content to the new system. Doesn't look like that will happen with the PS4/720. You might want to consider doing that before your Wii goes out completely. And then you can play the best game of the last 5-6 years without fear. To me all that is worth more than waiting for a possible $50 drop.

Couldn't you have gotten it $50 off from that Costco sale? I'm sure we'll see a few more sale/bundles before any price drop. That may be the way to go.[/QUOTE]

I could have done the Costco sale, I'm a member until May but I didn't realize my Wii was having issues until I started playing Xenoblade at which point I decided not to play it. I'm just going to stick to using the Wii for WiiFit stuff. I've got 8 games downloaded to it from the Club Nintendo point redemption. I imagine it will hold out only using it maybe half an hour a week or so.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']
Disagree. This isn't "mario" this is "new super mario bros". if this was Mario Galaxy then yeah I'd agree. My guess is that the 720 and PS4 will sell out during the holidays though that may be a smaller total number sold than the Wii U as they may not have as much inventory on the shelves. The Wii U met demand which means everyone that wanted one bought one. The 720 and PS4 may only have 1-2 million consoles out this year which would mean there's a shortage and that they could sell out but never reach the Wii U numbers.

To put it bluntly, only 3 million people in the world wanted a Wii U during the holidays at the price they were selling them at and with the games that were available. If the other consoles sell out the entire holiday season we'll never know how many people wanted them. I think this will happen.[/QUOTE]

What exactly do you think will be the selling point for a $400-$500 (most likely $450) console that will have people buying them over a PS3/360?

Are you going to buy one of these consoles? I know I won't at launch and frankly I don't know anyone who is. Granted, there is little to no information about the next Xbox (mostly negative rumors about used games) but after the conference that Sony just held I can't see people lining up for the thing like they do for an iPhone. Especially when the PS3 is a much better value in this economy and has a hell of a lot more games to play.

Because of that, I can't see the new consoles selling out this holiday.

And I still hold on to the sentiment that Mario (no matter 2D or 3D) is more appealing to the masses than Killzone or anything else rumored to launch with the PS4.
 
Antlp89 - people don't buy consoles at launch for the value. There is usually two or three interesting launch titles and that is it. But I do think that both new systems will be sold out this Christmas.
 
[quote name='hufferstl']Antlp89 - people don't buy consoles at launch for the value. There is usually two or three interesting launch titles and that is it. But I do think that both new systems will be sold out this Christmas.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the PS4 is really supply constrained. My understanding is that only so much DDR5 RAM is made right now and since that thing will use 8 gigs, it's going to be tough to supply enough. There's already talk that the PS3 may drive up the cost of graphics cards the second half of the year because of high demand for the RAM as well.
 
[quote name='antlp89']I'm extremely interested to see how well the PS4 and new Xbox will sell this holiday given the state of the economy and the value of the 360/PS3.

In my opinion, those consoles will have titles even less appealing than the Wii U at launch (Mario vs Killzone) and I don't see them faring much or if at all better than the Wii U.

Really not surprising the Vita outsold the Wii U last week as it just had a price cut and a new game coming out (PSO2).[/QUOTE]

This, right here.

If either Microsoft or Sony thinks they can trot out a $400+ machine and have it sell out they're absolutely kidding themselves. The mass market cannot, and will not, support that price point in the current economy.

Everyone talks about library and technical specs deciding which console is successful but no one ever talks about price. Price is just as important, if not more important, than the other 2 factors. Look at the PS3, and tell me specs and library were the major factors holding it back at launch. It was the price, the price it launched at $500-600 is downright laughable. If they do it again, they're destined for failure. $400 has to be the absolute ceiling for the launch price on these next console if they even hope to have a fighting chance because by next fall Wii U will have had a price cut and will be in the $250-300 price range at most.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']This, right here.

If either Microsoft or Sony thinks they can trot out a $400+ machine and have it sell out they're absolutely kidding themselves. The mass market cannot, and will not, support that price point in the current economy.

Everyone talks about library and technical specs deciding which console is successful but no one ever talks about price. Price is just as important, if not more important, than the other 2 factors. Look at the PS3, and tell me specs and library were the major factors holding it back at launch. It was the price, the price it launched at $500-600 is downright laughable. If they do it again, they're destined for failure. $400 has to be the absolute ceiling for the launch price on these next console if they even hope to have a fighting chance because by next fall Wii U will have had a price cut and will be in the $250-300 price range at most.[/QUOTE]

This. Hopefully Sony learned a goddamn lesson from the PS3 launch debacle. Remember, the big three are not only competing against each other and current gen but against tablets/smartphones too.
 
[quote name='MetalSlugger']This. Hopefully Sony learned a goddamn lesson from the PS3 launch debacle. Remember, the big three are not only competing against each other and current gen but against tablets/smartphones too.[/QUOTE]

I think there's more of a problem with third party developers/publishers tbh. I really get the sense that they believe PS4/Nextbox will rocket out of the gate to higher sales than the Wii. I'll be interested to hear what products Apple has lined up against PS4/Nextbox this fall as well, which probably includes iPhone 6, iPad Mini 2 and iPad XL.
 
[quote name='antlp89']What exactly do you think will be the selling point for a $400-$500 (most likely $450) console that will have people buying them over a PS3/360?

Are you going to buy one of these consoles? I know I won't at launch and frankly I don't know anyone who is. Granted, there is little to no information about the next Xbox (mostly negative rumors about used games) but after the conference that Sony just held I can't see people lining up for the thing like they do for an iPhone. Especially when the PS3 is a much better value in this economy and has a hell of a lot more games to play.

Because of that, I can't see the new consoles selling out this holiday.

And I still hold on to the sentiment that Mario (no matter 2D or 3D) is more appealing to the masses than Killzone or anything else rumored to launch with the PS4.[/QUOTE]

I predict 399.99 for both consoles. There may be a more expensive sku with more HDD space or something but it will be completely irrelevant. I can't see myself buying either on release. I'll probably wait for a price drop though there may be more games released for them than most expect, especially the 720.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I don't completely understand the reasoning here but this sounds pretty bad for Nintendo.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/crytek-explains-why-crysis-3-wii-u-had-to-die-6404763[/QUOTE]

Mean's EA is still having issues with not being able to push Nintendo to adopt Origin completely for the Wii U online middleware.

Impact to Nintendo... It certainly isnt good that a bunch of games are opting to not release Wii U ports, whatever the reason. Although, would Crysis move Wii U consoles? Probably not, but it would probably sell a few copies.

Nintendo isnt in SEGA territory from a financial perspective, or even a partner perspective given the strength of their handheld systems, but it is back square into Gamecube territory it seems.
 
[quote name='foltzie']Mean's EA is still having issues with not being able to push Nintendo to adopt Origin completely for the Wii U online middleware.

Impact to Nintendo... It certainly isnt good that a bunch of games are opting to not release Wii U ports, whatever the reason. Although, would Crysis move Wii U consoles? Probably not, but it would probably sell a few copies.

Nintendo isnt in SEGA territory from a financial perspective, or even a partner perspective given the strength of their handheld systems, but it is back square into Gamecube territory it seems.[/QUOTE]

I mean they describe it as virtually complete. Seems like leaving money on the table. That's what I don't get.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I mean they describe it as virtually complete. Seems like leaving money on the table. That's what I don't get.[/QUOTE]

That's your typical BS line from a producer. The game probably was still months away from being complete. No way EA throws all that work away over a simple dispute.
 
If I had to guess it's just EA being a bunch of pansies and are trying to embarrass Nintendo by saying such ridicule comments. How much longer does EA have the NFL license for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top