I'm sorry.Quote:
FFTA
Printable View
I'm sorry.Quote:
FFTA
It's telling when a company's ideal (in their own eyes) move is not to make better software to compete, but release much cheaper hardware. Oh, and that they are going after the "non-gamer" crowd. Why should we, as gamers, be excited?
Do you drive a Ferrarri? If not, you support this ideal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Worst analogy ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
If games cost 10 times the average person's yearly salary it wouldn't be, though.
If every car out there but one was a Ferrari, then yes, I would probably go for the Ferrari.
The hardware isn't cheaper when compared to previous generations. Everyone else is just getting more expensive, and they're still selling at a loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
And it's a totally reasonable move. Not everyone wants to pay $400+ just for a system, and $60+ for games. Some do, and that's fine, they've already got two companies catering directly to them. Why do they need a third?
I understand...it's just like, I dunno, conceding defeat. Many years ago you wouldn't think Nintendo was going to have the cheapest system on the market. You'd say, "Nintendo is the heavy hitter, WTF is this junk". It's not like Nintendo is doing this because they want to be nice.
Yes. It's weird seeing Nintendo do this. In the 1990s they were the most original AND the most technologically advanced. StarFox with its 200 polygons per second was mind-blowing. They always tried to be ahead of the tech curve. Even the GameCube, while not as powerful as Xbox, was a very impressive and powerful piece of hardware for the price.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
The Wii... they could probably sell it for $100, and that is taking the remotei nto account. The hardware is just nothing.
A car is at least a necessity. We've seen the ridiculous outrage on this board over the $600 PS3. Is it really that different? Granted, a smaller percentage can afford a Ferrarri than a PS3, but it still forces some people to find a cheaper alternative with less performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
I know, they're doing it because they can't compete with Sony and Microsoft on an equal playing field. Which is why I'm glad they're not trying to, because they did that with the Gamecube and we all saw how that turned out. And the whole "cheap hardware + controller gimmick" thing is working out amazingly well with the DS, so who knows? At the very least there's some actual diversity between the systems this generation, so owning all three won't seem horribly redundant.
Not as we know them, so far driving games seem to just need you to tilt the remote frome side to side which looks like it could work out fine. Traditional fighters wont work on the remote that's for damn sure, but IMO they don't work on anything but an arcade stick anyway. I'de love to see a wii punch out style game though that could work great. And even with a traditional controller nintendo couldn't get any fighters the cube has what 3?Quote:
(fighting games, driving games, etc)
A Ferrari is not a necessity. Not even people with Ferraris take them out to the daily commute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
understatement of the century?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
A better analogy would've been comparing like a $30,000 car to a $15,000 car. But even then its still pretty bad. Just admit you said something dumb and let's move on.Quote:
but it still forces some people to find a cheaper alternative with less performance.
I think HDTV and SDTV are pretty apt comparisons for the consoles were talking about.
I'm not really convinced that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360. Even if it is, I suspect the difference is tiny. So it's $200 for Blu-Ray. No thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Me neither. Sony has a habit of blowing smoke up our asses anyway. Bluray though, can be a blessing or a curse. So far, it is not looking good but it is still early for Sony to correct their mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoleTroll
Yep. We should be seeing Nintendo releasing a weaker system for the same price as the big guys. MS and Sony should be taking massive losses on their consoles in a price war, and Nintendo - unable and unwilling to take huge losses - should be unable to compete. Instead, consumers are being gouged by MS and Sony with ever rising prices on run-of-the-mill hardware. By doing this, they've created a huge opening for Nintendo and other companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
Despite what Sony claims, the higher prices are not going for more powerful hardware. The old consoles had graphics superior to the PCs for maybe a year after launch, then only a few months for the N64 when a certain board was released (don't recall the board). But the current consoles don't appear to be more powerful than PCs at the time of their launch. The prices are way higher than the past, but the money is definitely not going for graphics.
This is exactly why it's a non-issue for me. If Nintendo had the only gaming system last gen, or the leading one even, I would see Wii as a colossal step back for the gaming industry. But Sony obviously has the next step of hardware covered, and it's pretty apparent that Nintendo is having trouble reinvigorating its first party software with graphics alone. So I don't see the loss here. It's an interesting alternative that could be successful for a huge number of reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
I would be far more willing to pay 400 for a Nintendo console than a Sony or MS console. I owned all three systems this generation and up until this summer (I've bought a lot of games for Xbox and PS2 since they're so low now) I hardly played anything but my GC. I just think that the quality of Nintendo's exclusives just knocks the teeth out of most stuff on the other consoles. The only thing I'm sad Nintendo is REALLY in need of is some great action games like Ninja Gaiden or DMC. It looks like the Wii is going to have the best exclusive content this generation not only because of its 1st party, but also because of the controller. Sure the system isn't as powerful but that really doesn't matter at all when the other 2 consoles on the market have literally one game between them that I'm really at all interested in.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
Point in closing- if Nintendo has the best games, they'll do very well. And so far they've been able to convince me that they will. I really don't give a shit if they "win" the console wars or not, as long as they stay profitable and can keep making great games.
My feeling on it is more or less the same as my feeling on the DS. The hardware doesn't impress me, and the gimmick is just that. But if they can put out some games that I really want to play, a $200 investment isn't that hard to swallow. Good, exclusive games talk, and I wouldn't be surprised if Nintendo does well enough in this regard
If it makes you feel any better, Nintendo made a shitload more money on Gamecube than Microsoft made on Xbox (MS lost something like 4 billion).Quote:
Originally Posted by TaekwondoNJ
exzactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The only thing Nintendo has going for them is the controler( That could either be amazing or a gimmick) and 24/7 connect or whatever they call their online system.
Well looking back at E3 I doubt their will be a problem with exclusives on the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingoffighters
And a significantly smaller price.Quote:
Originally Posted by avatar