Next Gen War

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I LOVE PLAYSTATION THREE

Why couln't they make a more powerful console and sell it at a loss instead of a cheap one and sell it at a profit?

---

There's been a lot of stupid things said in this thread, but this is simply stunning.

lol... unbeleivable

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icarusfall

There's been a lot of stupid things said in this thread, but this is simply stunning.

---

How do you figure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Agreed, but the difference in the Wii and the PS3 is price, not games. If it were $300 vs. $400 no one would be buying a Wii.

---

Again, incorrect, because the SECOND HIGHEST RATED GAME EVER launched with the Wii.

You may not agree, but you're not everyone.

"It took the 360 months, if not a year to get a title that REALLY utilized the system's abilities"

PGR3, Kameo (like it or not) and Condemned, as well as other games on the system, look miles better than anything on the last gen and they were launch titles. Nothing on the Wii plays miles ahead of anything. There's a difference. Also, making your money off games seems more of a "it's about the games" than selling your system at a profit. That doesn't sound like "it's about the games" to me. That says "Well, if this tanks, at least we're in the black".

As a nice aside, don't you find it at all weird that GAMERS DON'T CARE ABOUT HD but I'd be willing to bet that HD is ahead of wireless internet for gaming right now (which is the only way you can use the Wii online). And what's more is that there's NO ONLINE PLAY YET. In fact, all you can do with it is spend Wii Points on 5 to 10 dollar ROMS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MechDeus

How do you figure?

---

Am I to understand that Nintendo should be taking financial strategy advice from Joust? Not to mention financial advice that shaky, given Nintendo's prior track record. That's just not what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burgundy

Again, incorrect, because the SECOND HIGHEST RATED GAME EVER launched with the Wii.

You may not agree, but you're not everyone.

---

That really doesn't matter, one game could not have challenged sony if the ps3 was cheaper. The system could have launched without a controller and beat the wii had it cost 400$, and they had the launch units.

Here's how I see it.
Graphix/Online = ZB0Z 2000
Fun/Multiplayer/Party Games = Wii
LOL = PS3.

I usually get all the consoles but it's going to be a LONG time for the ps3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burgundy

Then why is the shitty ported Zelda on the shitty barely-better-than-PS2 shaping up to be the highest rated game overall this year at Gamerankings? If it looks so bad, it must just be that good.
Or else dog$ and Joust and Jeff from Gamespot are right, and the rest of the universe is wrong. How likely is that?
No one except that new dude who used "u" and "ur" has said that graphics don't matter. Everyone on this side of the argument has said that graphics aren't the only thing, and frankly, they're not the most important thing.

---

I'm sure there are lots of reasons. Maybe it's a great game; maybe enough fans just love the series. I don't know and I really don't care, and it has nothing to do with the point I was arguing -- graphics are important to videogames, even if not the be-all end-all for every single game. If you feel that how a game looks isn't so important, that's just fine by me.

"Am I to understand that Nintendo should be taking financial strategy advice from Joust? Not to mention financial advice that shaky, given Nintendo's prior track record. That's just not what they do."

I don't care about Nintendo's finances. They said it was all about the games. PROVE IT by releasing a system at a loss and making the money up with your 'wonderful' games. They didn't. So it's not all about the games to them.