Where do you think those 1080p movies on you newsgroup servers come from kid? I'll give you a hint... it starts with Blu and ends with Ray.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Analyst: PlayStation 3 to Win Console War
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Where do you think those 1080p movies on you newsgroup servers come from kid? I'll give you a hint... it starts with Blu and ends with Ray.
cant hear you over the sound of how AWESOME Dragon Age is
PreOmegaZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 4,013
There's a lot of delusion in you reading into what I said as me thinking piracy is not on consoles. However, what you are saying is: some people are buying 2 consoles (of which money may, or may not actually go to the hardware vendor), still buy games to play online (in some fashion perhaps similar as the consoles), then pirate the 'single player games'. Other than Bioshock, or perhaps a RPG, can you name any somewhat major console game nowadays without some form of online and/or multiplayer?
What I was saying however, is that the PC platform is the easiest to pirate, being that they already own the system they are using to acquire the pirated goods. Most of the time the download already contains the manner needed to get around any DRM/Copy protection. No modification is ever needed (Dreamcast says hello).
These people would more than likely never support a company by helping to fund them, regardless of their motivation/reasoning.
Well that's pretty obvious, being that the easiest platform to pirate is now gone? Not sure what point you were trying to prove there. No one except you was making the argument about piracy market share.
Semi-analogous to the Windows/Apple malware/virus/security argument (Windows being PC, Apple being Consoles)?.
Wii is fairly easy to pirate, PS3 is in alpha stage at best.
Nintendo makes money on their console, Sony still does not; even with the Slim.
That's been the thinking by some, and it's been proven to be foolish thinking over time. Sins of a Solar Empire (as do most, if not ALL of StarDock's games) had no DRM, put an incentive to buy the game by offering free DLC to subscribers. Result? The game was still pirated.
On the flip side, BioShock for PC had a terrible DRM scheme, and yet still managed to sell quite a few units on the PC side in spite of it.
Looking again at the console side, the Nintendo DS was fairly easy to hack, yet still manages to sell many, many games, and of course, there was the Dreamcawst with zero DRM, and that didn't exactly turn out so spectacular in game sales.
On the physical media side; tying a CD key a game seems to have worked enough for StarCraft and Diablo, but was still a poor idea in that a small code written on either a CD sleeve, or slip of paper smaller than a Snickers bar basically decided if you could legally install, and use the game you had purchased.
The 'DRM' of the future might be the MMO/Subscription model.
I prefer Steam, and can deal with the DRM due to: patches handled by Valve (and pushed out), and tying the game to my account (which leads to the ease of downloading, and playing my purchased games on any computer I may have steam on).
Nor really. Look at most EA and 2K Sports titles. They still get purchased year in; year out with hardly ever living up to whatever feature/rosters were promoted that year.
Some developers support their games quite well (Burnout Paradise, StarCraft, Team Fortress 2), but it's really in the minority, and those devs are not applauded, or appreciated for their efforts.
Good games with a fairly long history/lineage and fan base helps. Seems no one remembers how PC Fallout fans were raking FO3 over the coals for changing up the look/gameplay/'formula'.
The poor sales I'd say are due to the fact that PC is not the intended platform for this game/series, and PC players are realizing this. It has become tailored for consoles, but has a PC version to placate those players. It just doesn't help any when people hate the parent company, they 'add' matchmaking (which is step 1 towards the subscription model for this series), and the game has as many exploits/bugs as CoD:MW (same engine, seemingly same problematic code). It's not like CoD:MW was not hackable or anything.
We can agree on something, but even developers have a problem with that (Valve's conflict of interest being involved with Steam).
zero2dash
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
Impossible.
Nintendo's so far ahead, no one is going to catch them. And even by some miracle if anyone does (which could take the average "Sony Playstation 10 year lifecycle"), they're still not going to be as far ahead as Nintendo in profit since their hw is the cheapest to manufacture.
Nintendo makes money better than anyone, without question.
Unfortunately for them in my opinion, they also made the worst console.
I'm on my 4th 360 meanwhile my eBay "broken" [launch model] Ps3 still works perfectly. Never had any problems with the Wii, but then again it's hardly been used since the first month or so of owning it.
Out of the 3, I'd say the Ps3 is the best overall complete package. PSN may be missing a few small things that Live has, but then again it doesn't cost money either.
The Wii has sold nearly as many consoles as the PS3 and 360 combined (http://www.vgchartz.com/). I agree with some of the others, if the PS3 "wins," it will only be because Microsoft and Nintendo have moved on to their next generation consoles. I hardly call that winning.
I think something a lot of Analysts skip over is that Sony's already passed Microsoft for number of consoles in (practical) use.
Fact is, Microsoft's lead on Sony has never really been that big in the world-wide market, with Microsoft maintaining maybe a 1 million to 2 million console sales lead. However, if you suddenly remove over 1 million Xbox's from the consumer market, the difference goes away right?
Microsoft's harsh actions to in-house employees and contract employees after details of the scale of the Red Ring of Death problem come into focus here. We do know, for a stated fact, that Microsoft set aside nearly one billion dollars to focus on fixing existing red-ring of death problems. We also known from anecdotal evidence that several Xbox 360 customers with Red Rings of Death were refused service. I know this for personal fact as my own 360 red ringed and Microsoft pretty much told me I was S.O.L.
We also know, for a stated fact, from Microsoft's filings to the US's Internal Revenue Service and Federal Trade Commission (I.R.S. and F.T.C.) that Microsoft's original Xbox never actually outsold the Gamecube. This was a story that very few gaming press sites picked up on outside of Gamenikki.com, although after the, I want to say 4th year of Microsoft restating their actual Xbox sales, European focused site Gamesindustry.biz picked up on the story as well. This was mostly because Microsoft was also restating sales numbers in the European market... and the Asian / Japanese markets.
With this kind of history, with Microsoft having been caught inflating sales numbers for several years in a row, it stands to reason that Microsoft's probably been inflating numbers on the 360 sales. Now, there actually isn't any proof of this. Microsoft's been burying Xbox reports in the Home and Entertainment Division for a few years as well, and restates to the various regulatory agencies are cryptic at best.
There is also, as another point of evidence, the staggering sales of the Xbox 360 bundle you don't want, the Arcade version. While Microsoft has never stated that the Arcade enjoys re-sales of the base console to people already owning Xbox 360 accessories and games, the sales data from the various US distributors (Gamestop, Wall-Mart, Target, and the like), doesn't fit or scale with the sales of arcades.
The anecdotal impression is that Microsoft is flat out lying over how many Xbox 360's they sell on a regular basis; and that the Red Ring of Death problem is far larger and more consistent across the Xbox 360 range than Microsoft. In the case of the Arcade system sells, if we accept that 2 or 3 million Xbox 360's went bust and were replaced by gamers buying the cheap Arcade version, the patterns of actual game and accessory sales fall back into ratios comparable to the original Xbox, and competitors such as the PS3, PS2, and Gamecube.
From a market analyst point of view, from somebody trying to make sense of what Microsoft tells the regulatory agencies, and what it's distributors tell regulatory agencies... the numbers don't add up. It's very likely then that in terms of people actually owning a console, which is not the same as playing the console, the PS3 has already passed the Xbox 360.
***
Whether or not the PS3 will be able to pass the Wii? Well, looking at Nintendo's published Life to Date sales: http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_sales_e0912.pdf
Not likely. I think it's fairly safe to say that the Wii is out of range unless Sony does with the PS3 what they did with the PS1 and PS2... which is keeping the console on the market while the new console sells. If Sony does what Microsoft did and completely abandon the console when a new one hits, then no, the PS3 will likely never catch the Wii. If Sony does what Nintendo did and poorly support the older console while the new console sells, there still is a chance that the PS3's life to date could surpass that of the Wii. I just doubt it.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
My prediction is very different, from what that author said. Mostly because he's not taking a lot of things into consideration.
#1 COST
We'll likely not see a new console from Microsoft or Sony, due mainly to cost. These consoles were $400-$600, back in 1996-1997. For even Microsoft to release a new console would be pointless, as new hardware would drive the price of the console easily past $500. When PS3 and 360 went down in price recently, they had a surge of sales for these consoles. Considering how advanced these consoles are compared to the previous generation, both Microsoft and Sony won't consider replacing these consoles for years.
Wii on the other hand will see an upgrade soon, but nothing major. We may see a WiiHD soon, but Wii2 won't be out for a couple of years. Nintendo doesn't seem concerned about graphics, and the sales show that neither do their costumers.
#2 PC
Consoles always play catch up to PC hardware, and that's the reason why we see new hardware every 5 years, otherwise PCs would make consoles look like yesterdays news. PCs are already atrociously more powerful then PS3 or 360. Getting to the point where you could build a cheap but decent gaming PC for ~$600, which includes a 22" LCD monitor.
Imagine what PCs can do by 2012 or 2014? As the economy becomes a bigger issue, people may end up gaming on the cheap, using PCs. Every home has to have a PC, but not every home has to have a gaming console. College students will use Laptops to play games, communicate with friends, and to study.
Biggest problem with PC gaming, is the lack of dedicated games. PC games having problems with consolitis. It's inevitable that a new company will emerge, and will begin making new innovative games for PC, because we've observed this in the past.
#3 There may never be a PS4 or 720
I can't really see people being able to afford new consoles in the future. For a long time, the PS2 was selling better then the PS3, and I believe it still is. This maybe due to PS2 having dirt cheap games, and consoles.
Nintendo has the right idea, keep it cheap and make good games. Though they're targeting a casual gaming audience, which will be a mistake, but nothing that making different games won't fix.
I believe that what Blizzard said about console and PCs merging will be true. The price of PCs continue to fall, while the price of consoles continue to rise. It's very easy to plug PCs into HDTVs, and cheap sub $20 adapters to use wireless console controllers for PCs. Nearly every game on consoles, finds it's way to PCs.
#1 COST
We'll likely not see a new console from Microsoft or Sony, due mainly to cost. These consoles were $400-$600, back in 1996-1997. For even Microsoft to release a new console would be pointless, as new hardware would drive the price of the console easily past $500. When PS3 and 360 went down in price recently, they had a surge of sales for these consoles. Considering how advanced these consoles are compared to the previous generation, both Microsoft and Sony won't consider replacing these consoles for years.
Wii on the other hand will see an upgrade soon, but nothing major. We may see a WiiHD soon, but Wii2 won't be out for a couple of years. Nintendo doesn't seem concerned about graphics, and the sales show that neither do their costumers.
#2 PC
Consoles always play catch up to PC hardware, and that's the reason why we see new hardware every 5 years, otherwise PCs would make consoles look like yesterdays news. PCs are already atrociously more powerful then PS3 or 360. Getting to the point where you could build a cheap but decent gaming PC for ~$600, which includes a 22" LCD monitor.
Imagine what PCs can do by 2012 or 2014? As the economy becomes a bigger issue, people may end up gaming on the cheap, using PCs. Every home has to have a PC, but not every home has to have a gaming console. College students will use Laptops to play games, communicate with friends, and to study.
Biggest problem with PC gaming, is the lack of dedicated games. PC games having problems with consolitis. It's inevitable that a new company will emerge, and will begin making new innovative games for PC, because we've observed this in the past.
#3 There may never be a PS4 or 720
I can't really see people being able to afford new consoles in the future. For a long time, the PS2 was selling better then the PS3, and I believe it still is. This maybe due to PS2 having dirt cheap games, and consoles.
Nintendo has the right idea, keep it cheap and make good games. Though they're targeting a casual gaming audience, which will be a mistake, but nothing that making different games won't fix.
I believe that what Blizzard said about console and PCs merging will be true. The price of PCs continue to fall, while the price of consoles continue to rise. It's very easy to plug PCs into HDTVs, and cheap sub $20 adapters to use wireless console controllers for PCs. Nearly every game on consoles, finds it's way to PCs.
Sort of like how you say you aren't biased against the 360 but refuse to buy one because it's a "piece of junk".
I own a 360 and PS3. I have game titles for both, but use the PS3 the most. Mainly because I stream online video through it and watch blu-ray movies on it. Because of that I tend to lean toward PS3 games when a game comes out on both the PS3 and 360. It isn't because I think it looks better or handles games better than the 360, I'm just use to turning it on more.
In reality it's hard to keep up with gaming on 3 systems, I use to own a Wii but I sold it to a friend since I would get more use out of the Focal speakers I put in my car (with the aid of the money from the sold Wii) then I was getting out of my Wii.
I find trouble keeping up with both my PS3 and 360 since I also game on the PC... There is a good chance that Fail just uses the RROD and scratch disc argument as a primary defense for the purchases that he made and is satisfied with (just as many with 360's are).
It's pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. I say the 360 scratches discs, then you say the PS3's load times are horrendeous. I say the 360 has a better online component, then you say you would never pay a fee to play games online. I say the 360 has better exclusives, and you say the PS3 has better exclusives.
This is why I own both of the juggernaut consoles, so I don't get caught up in this mess, I can enjoy the exclusives on both that aren't out for the PC (and Fail there are some good ones for the 360 that aren't on the PC, will you miss them? Nahh too many games so little time, but don't down play their existence).
At the end of the day, I am happy with both systems, but I still think Sony didn't deserve such a surge in sales due to a price drop. They have done little else besides that to polish such a tarnished reputation. Though they pulled similar stunts back in the days of the PS2 developers backed their system and it was my favorite system of that generation, those days are over Sony and it is time to put the archaic hardware business model behind you.
I certainly hope Sony doesn't become the Toyota of the console world, pissing on you while telling you it's raining.
Diseaseboy
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2001
- Messages
- 1,206
No way is PS3 going to sell more. Blu-ray is no longer a factor in PS3 sales anymore IMHO. All the new 2010 blu-ray players released in the last few weeks are as fast and perform just as well as a PS3- including Sony's own base player that sells for $179. The players also stream youtube, netflix and can be used to stream media from pcs. The days of "I bought a PS3 for blu-ray and to play some games" are over- especially if the PS3 is still $299.
So really you have to look at what the 360 offers vs what the PS3 offers in terms of games. The biggest factor for me is what my friends play- 90% of them all have Xbox's and play on Xbox Live. I bought a 360 because my friends all had them. I just don't know many people who actually play games on a PS3- maybe it's just the group of people I hang out with.
So really you have to look at what the 360 offers vs what the PS3 offers in terms of games. The biggest factor for me is what my friends play- 90% of them all have Xbox's and play on Xbox Live. I bought a 360 because my friends all had them. I just don't know many people who actually play games on a PS3- maybe it's just the group of people I hang out with.
Trepidati0n
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 9,269
FTFY
It's definitely not the group you hang out with. I know a shocking number of people who don't play games on their PS3's. They use them for blu-ray and internet and nothing else. That being said, I have a few friends who bought 360's over PS3's because their friends all play on line with them despite wanting a PS3 more.
I own all 4..
My PC Gaming is strictly MMO... except for blizzard games, and the gf with her sims 3. And this is mostly because game playing is just so much easier on the consoles, very rare system crashes, no drivers being incompatable and causing headaches, no features turned off because the developer got into bed with Nvidia over ATI... you plug in the disc and go.
My wii gaming is for when company is over beyond that non-existant, it's a great system for multiplayer games where you are all in the same room, something the other consoles seem to of forgotten about.
My X-box Gaming is strictly online, since that is also the console everyone else seems to have for online play, so if i want to play CoD or something silly like ghostbusters online with them, I had to have it.
The PS3 I use for offline games, or games i'm never going to play online modes with, like brutal legends, DA:O, ME2, FFXIII aswell as for blu-ray and dvd upscaling.
Every one has there advantages and there disadvantages, and that is what really makes this round of the wars so interesting... it's people who embrace everything that win in the end, instead of the constant bickering over which will win, which is better.
My PC Gaming is strictly MMO... except for blizzard games, and the gf with her sims 3. And this is mostly because game playing is just so much easier on the consoles, very rare system crashes, no drivers being incompatable and causing headaches, no features turned off because the developer got into bed with Nvidia over ATI... you plug in the disc and go.
My wii gaming is for when company is over beyond that non-existant, it's a great system for multiplayer games where you are all in the same room, something the other consoles seem to of forgotten about.
My X-box Gaming is strictly online, since that is also the console everyone else seems to have for online play, so if i want to play CoD or something silly like ghostbusters online with them, I had to have it.
The PS3 I use for offline games, or games i'm never going to play online modes with, like brutal legends, DA:O, ME2, FFXIII aswell as for blu-ray and dvd upscaling.
Every one has there advantages and there disadvantages, and that is what really makes this round of the wars so interesting... it's people who embrace everything that win in the end, instead of the constant bickering over which will win, which is better.
oh... and I held out a long... long time before even entering the console territory, it's only in the last year I bought all 3 beyond the PC... mostly because I was waiting for X-box to fix the RRoD issue which jasper appears to of done (we'll see in another year).. and waiting for PS3 slim / price drops... but once I got the first one, and realized the strengths of each one, it was inevitable to get the rest
you all do realize that this guy is from the same company that in 2005 predicted lifetime sales:
121 million ps3
~50 million 360
18 million wii
in 2006 predicted
121 million ps3
~50 million 360
23 million wii
software wise, the wii outsells the ps3 by a large margin
software wise the wii does outsell the 360
the wii has more million seller 3rd party games than the ps3 does
the wii has peaked?
can i have what they are smoking. sure it peaked - it HAD to peak sometime. now it's going to go on at a steady clip for the next few years.
in the next 3 months:
red steel 2
metroidther m
super mario galaxy 2
sin & punishment 2
monster hunter 3
lego harry potter (the lego games sell best on wii)
prince of persia the forgotten sands
tiger woods 2011 (again this game sells Best on the wii)
etc.
every single one of these games (except for the tiger woods) i am planning on buying(unless prince of persia sucks)
so ya, the wii has No games for the Core gamer...not at all /sarcasm
121 million ps3
~50 million 360
18 million wii
in 2006 predicted
121 million ps3
~50 million 360
23 million wii
software wise, the wii outsells the ps3 by a large margin
software wise the wii does outsell the 360
the wii has more million seller 3rd party games than the ps3 does
the wii has peaked?
can i have what they are smoking. sure it peaked - it HAD to peak sometime. now it's going to go on at a steady clip for the next few years.
in the next 3 months:
red steel 2
metroid
ther msuper mario galaxy 2
sin & punishment 2
monster hunter 3
lego harry potter (the lego games sell best on wii)
prince of persia the forgotten sands
tiger woods 2011 (again this game sells Best on the wii)
etc.
every single one of these games (except for the tiger woods) i am planning on buying(unless prince of persia sucks)
so ya, the wii has No games for the Core gamer...not at all /sarcasm
Zoson
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 6,113
I coulda told you this a years ago.
ibex333
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,120
I just hope SEGA comes out with a new console and kills both the X360 and the PS3. Nintendo can stay since it always provided a healthy dose of competition without destroying SEGA's market completely..
zero2dash
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
Sega will never produce hardware again - bank on it.
I don't think they've ever made back what they lost on the SegaCD or 32X let alone the Saturn or the Dreamcast.
I was a huge Sega fan, I liked the SegaCD (Prize Fighter was awesome back in the day), I loved my modded Saturn and my modded Dreamcast...but Sega...Sega is gone for good man. They realized that software is the way to go...let the others duke it out over hardware.
I don't think they've ever made back what they lost on the SegaCD or 32X let alone the Saturn or the Dreamcast.
I was a huge Sega fan, I liked the SegaCD (Prize Fighter was awesome back in the day), I loved my modded Saturn and my modded Dreamcast...but Sega...Sega is gone for good man. They realized that software is the way to go...let the others duke it out over hardware.
Charlie Hustle
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2006
- Messages
- 839
But you did with the wii, huh?
Lets be for real, you are a fanboy, you have every excuse not to get a 360 but you have a ps3 and you burned money on the wii, but you still knock the 360. Im not mad at you, but dont hate on the 360 unless you have one and gave up on it. I dont have a ps3 (got a 360, my second one also, and a wii), but im getting one within the next couple of months.
If you just dont like what M$ has to offer, then thats fine, but youre seriously missing out on some gems. You can say the same about the ps3, and thats why i feel its time for me to get one.
Well, first off, if by crush you mean outsell them, Nintendo is already accomplishing that so why would they bother worrying about an HD upgrade to the Wii.
Second, don't be too sure that it would improve sales at all. The Wii is being sold in large part to/for the "casual" and younger (under 10) market. The folks that care enough about having a million-plus pixels that they're unwilling to buy a Wii also might not get the games they want on a Wii HD.
Speaking purely for myself, a Wii HD couldn't replace my 360 or PS3 based on the games and the controller(s). I like the 360 controller best, the DualShock okay. The Wii motion controllers are good for games that utilize them well, but they can ruin an otherwise good game. Maybe it's because I'm "old school" but in any case I'm not at all ready to go motion control-primary.
ThecknoDecker
n00b
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2003
- Messages
- 41
Well that is really bad news for Sony... Actually those analyst didn't realize that Sony is LOOSING money everytime they sell you a PS3...
So by 2014 they might go bankrupt!
I like my PS3 alot.
I chose it because I'm against paying for "live" service which should be free.
And I bought a PS3 I didnt rent a 360 at 450$ for 3 years, if it last that long.
I sold my PS2 because I wasnt playing anymore, it was 4.5 years old, 2 years later, my friend who bought it is still playing with it, longevity is something good.
If the pyramids lasted only 50 years, egypt would not be so famous. Durability is a factor often overlooked
So by 2014 they might go bankrupt!
I like my PS3 alot.
I chose it because I'm against paying for "live" service which should be free.
And I bought a PS3 I didnt rent a 360 at 450$ for 3 years, if it last that long.
I sold my PS2 because I wasnt playing anymore, it was 4.5 years old, 2 years later, my friend who bought it is still playing with it, longevity is something good.
If the pyramids lasted only 50 years, egypt would not be so famous. Durability is a factor often overlooked
PreOmegaZero
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 4,013
The argument to this would be:
Nintendo pulls an Apple, and justs iterates on the DS (like Apple does on the iPods/iMacs for the most part). DS sales did not suffer jumping from the original DS (DS Fat) to the DS lite, or to the different colors (in fact, it usually made people go out, and purchase the new color scheme/bundle). Nothing major, just changes to screens and form factor/size.
DSi is released to combat piracy better, offer slightly better hardware (screens, cpu), a new physical game format, and no GBA backwards compatibility. An iteration of the DS mosrtly, but if Nintendo ever put full effort for DSi games instead of DS, this could be their new portable platform (DSi XL/LL is yet another iteration).
What does that have to do with the Wii? It's probably the route Nintendo takes again since it hasn't really let them down yet.
Wii HD could potentially offer hardware comparable to the 360/PS3 (now that hardware costs have dropped for the more expensive components depending on the platform).
They can still support Wii games; upscale, and perhaps anti-alias them to 720p, yet provide enough graphical power to allow better ports of 360/PS3.
Developers can then release better 3rd party games on a Nintendo system by porting the 360/PS3 versions (that already has had thousands, if not millions invested into development); instead of the PS2 versions, and with the marketshare the Wii has; offer them a larger market to which both parties can benefit.
Nintendo would get the 3rd party games that are not just PS2 ports with waggle controls, and publishers get a platform on which they don't have to waste resources on down-porting/re-creating from a 360/PS3 SKU.
They could either keep the same (or the old $250) price point for the new system, drop the Wii's price closer to the PS2's price, and then build in a user base of the 'cheap'/economical gamers, who then have an upgrade path down the road to the 'Wii HD'.
Pipe Dream? Perhaps, but don't be too surprised if something similar ever happens. it already happened with the GBA -> GBA SP -> DS -> DSi
friend that works at Nintendo says the plan is drop the Wii to PS2 price levels sell what ever the next system is going to be called at ~300 bucks and it will be on par with the 360 and PS3
the idea is the keep the Wii as a casual console and make it dirt cheap
they are its in the works atm should be out in a year or so from what i have heard
zero2dash
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
No way a Wii successor costs $300 yet is on par with Gears 1+2 or Uncharted 1+2 graphically.
Problem #2 is unless they go back on their current philosphy and bundle regular controllers with 2 analog sticks, 4 face buttons and 4 bumpers....they can come with anything they want to, people aren't going to buy another motion controlled console if they already own a Wii *or* already own a 360 or Ps3 with Natal and Sphere coming out by Christmas.
Thirdly they'd have to reinvent their online service and drop the friend codes and that ain't going to happen either.
Nintendo does not get HD and they do not get online play. Their opinion is that HD penetration is so low and so is broadband penetration, so...why bother? It's the same stupid philosophy they've had since the Gamecube came out.
You do know that majority of online/multiplayer games have a singleplayer game. CoD:MW2, BF:BC2, etc all have a singleplayer game. Pirate it, play the singleplayer game, ignore the multiplayer. A lot of ppl do that. My co-worker never plays the multiplayer portion of his games, simply cause he doesn't like having to deal with little kids or trash talk.
I don't bother with multiplayer on my consoles, unless it's friends I know. Also don't like to deal with little kids. I'll do it on my PCs, as it seems majority of PC gamers are older or simply more mature.
Those banned 360s also made a cheap pirate console, as they were going for like $50 on ebay/craigslist. I was contemplating buying one for $50 here, since well...it was $50 and the person selling it was going to toss in 50 pirate games too. Less download for me.
Lord_Anselhelm
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 101
Yet another reason to distrust analysts.
Reminds me of a quote from Anchorman:
"60% of the time, it works every time."
Reminds me of a quote from Anchorman:
"60% of the time, it works every time."
You're joking, right? If Nintendo comes out with a "Wii HD" (or whatever) it could easily have graphics capability as good, or better than, the 360/PS3. Why wouldn't it? The 360 and PS3 are already well behind the PC graphics curve, so the tech is there to get it done "on the cheap." You might have an argument if such a device was coming out today (or perhaps within the next 3 months), but that's not the case.
Okay, I agree this would likely be a problem, if only because games really have to be tweaked a ton to make good use of the Wii controllers
But this isn't logical at all. Plenty of folks have bought both the 360 and the PS3 (myself included). The fact that they have similar controller functionality -- apart from the PS3 controller's underused motion capability -- isn't the stumbling block for anyone.
I don't know that it will never happen, but that is absolutely a huge problem facing the Wii when it comes to online gamers. The Wii/DS system is so user-unfriendly that it makes me angry every time I think about it.
HD/broadband penetration is just an excuse, and Nintendo knows it. With HD, they just wanted to get the most profit possible and debut at a lower price than the competition - mission accomplished. The online issue is all about making the system appear kid-friendly. There's a lot of paranoia out there about kids going online -- game consoles, PCs, etc. -- and Nintendo can point to their system and say "We're the safest!"
zero2dash
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
...Yeah, see, I didn't leave that statement open ended to where it could be twisted around like you just tried to.
Notice I didn't say anything about their sales in that sentence. I said their stance on HD and online play was a stupid philosophy. I didn't say their sales model was a stupid philosophy.
Nice try though.
Please do try to argue against this though. The Wii, just like the GC, supported a max 480p. The GC had an even more laughable online presence, what...2 games used the BBA and modem adapter? However the fact remains - the core of the Wii online engine is friend codes, same as the DS and it's many revisions (of which I own 2, a phat and a lite).
Why don't you think they deserved a surge in sales due to a price drop? I mean, that's the purpose of a price drop. To get higher sales.
Also, time after time, I seem to get a lot more from my firmware updates than what I get from MS's firmware updates. Last major update I can remember from MS, was the move to the new crap avatar style. I felt that was a huge move backwards and really really miss the blade interface. I would literally pay $100 to get my blade interface back.
When's the last time you really play a lot of games on the PC? I don't have system crashes or driver incompatibilities on my PC. Also developers can get in bed with Nvidia over ATI or ATI over Nvidia the same on consoles as they can on PCs. PS3 - Nvidia, 360 - ATI, Wii - ATI.
I embrace everything and I feel that I've lost more than I've gained. Most games are available on all platforms (cept Wii, cause it's such a crap console, that it can't support most high end games), so I find them mostly sitting on my PC. Instead, I've blown $600 on two PS3s (both hardware BC fat PS3s - Japan and US Version), $1800 on five 360s (3 Japan and 2 US / RROD Sucks!!!), and $250 for a Wii (which I gave away), just for a few exclusives.
zero2dash
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
Down the road probably.
Nintendo's business model is sell low, build at low cost. Hence the euphemism that the Wii is "2 Gamecubes duct taped together".
They could come up with something better, however, I doubt they'd sell it for $300 right off the bat. Nintendo doesn't like losing money; they never have. Hell they haven't lost money since the Virtual Boy. The Gamecube was a statistical failure (compared to the Ps2 and the Xbox), but it still made them money. Therefore going by past history - Nintendo's not going to sell a console that costs $500 to manufacture at an MSRP of $299; that's not going to happen. For crying out loud DS's are probably cheap enough to give away free with a box of cereal but that didn't stop them from announcing the DS XL will cost $190 which is damn near a Wii or a 360 Arcade.
I'm saying if Nintendo releases an "elite" Wii (HD and a higher cost), it's going to cater to what Nintendo calls "core gamers" (and what has been referred to as "hardcore gamers" for a long time now). I don't think core gamers are going to pay $300 for a Wii with HD graphics just to see Mario in 1080p. Core gamers are lifelong gamers who grew up on Nintendo (or Atari/Colecovision) like I did. Nintendo would need to shed the "kiddie" image, and they've done a decent job of starting that greenlighting stuff like Mad World and GTA DS, but they have to keep that up before I consider Nintendo as a company that isn't afraid to put out titles that may offend people (due to violence, content, blood, language, etc).
~just my $0.02
zero2dash
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 6,100
...to elaborate, I think Nintendo needs to come up with new stuff.
They rest on their laurels too much...everyone can count on another Mario, another Zelda, another Metroid.
Where's some new stuff at? Where's the Kid Icarus remake that was supposed to come out years ago? Surely there's more they can update than just Mario, Zelda, Metroid...and even Smash Brothers.
I'm not saying abandon those franchises...I'm saying, show me something new. Pikmin was a start. Nintendogs was a start. The Wii has so much shovelware it's disgusting. The best use of the console so far (IMO) was Resident Wiivel 4. There's only so much Wii Sports and Boom Blox that I can take. Carnival games? Another Raving Rabbids game? [sigh]
They rest on their laurels too much...everyone can count on another Mario, another Zelda, another Metroid.
Where's some new stuff at? Where's the Kid Icarus remake that was supposed to come out years ago? Surely there's more they can update than just Mario, Zelda, Metroid...and even Smash Brothers.
I'm not saying abandon those franchises...I'm saying, show me something new. Pikmin was a start. Nintendogs was a start. The Wii has so much shovelware it's disgusting. The best use of the console so far (IMO) was Resident Wiivel 4. There's only so much Wii Sports and Boom Blox that I can take. Carnival games? Another Raving Rabbids game? [sigh]
...Yeah, see, I didn't leave that statement open ended to where it could be twisted around like you just tried to.
Notice I didn't say anything about their sales in that sentence. I said their stance on HD and online play was a stupid philosophy. I didn't say their sales model was a stupid philosophy.
Nice try though.
Please do try to argue against this though. The Wii, just like the GC, supported a max 480p. The GC had an even more laughable online presence, what...2 games used the BBA and modem adapter? However the fact remains - the core of the Wii online engine is friend codes, same as the DS and it's many revisions (of which I own 2, a phat and a lite).
well apparently their stance on HD and online play, as much of a "stupid philosophy" as it is, it works hand in hand with their sales model, and it obviously works well, as the console says have indicated.
I for one play a few Wii games online. The only thing I use 360 for is for Guitar Hero games, and my PS3 finally got played for the first time in 2 years last week for dantes inferno, which I got used for 20 bucks.
Down the road probably.
Nintendo's business model is sell low, build at low cost. Hence the euphemism that the Wii is "2 Gamecubes duct taped together".
They could come up with something better, however, I doubt they'd sell it for $300 right off the bat. Nintendo doesn't like losing money; they never have. Hell they haven't lost money since the Virtual Boy. The Gamecube was a statistical failure (compared to the Ps2 and the Xbox), but it still made them money. Therefore going by past history - Nintendo's not going to sell a console that costs $500 to manufacture at an MSRP of $299; that's not going to happen. For crying out loud DS's are probably cheap enough to give away free with a box of cereal but that didn't stop them from announcing the DS XL will cost $190 which is damn near a Wii or a 360 Arcade.
I'm saying if Nintendo releases an "elite" Wii (HD and a higher cost), it's going to cater to what Nintendo calls "core gamers" (and what has been referred to as "hardcore gamers" for a long time now). I don't think core gamers are going to pay $300 for a Wii with HD graphics just to see Mario in 1080p. Core gamers are lifelong gamers who grew up on Nintendo (or Atari/Colecovision) like I did. Nintendo would need to shed the "kiddie" image, and they've done a decent job of starting that greenlighting stuff like Mad World and GTA DS, but they have to keep that up before I consider Nintendo as a company that isn't afraid to put out titles that may offend people (due to violence, content, blood, language, etc).
~just my $0.02
i dont know the 360 is in the black now and costs ~300 bucks
so its not out of line and Nintendo has a FUCK TON of cash so losing a bit wont hurt them much
this is also INSIDER INFO my friend works at nintendo japan and has seen hardware
it is on par with the 360 and is aimed had more "hardcore" gamers
the Wii will be sold along side it for ~100 bucks
the idea is that the Wii makes money to subsidize the other system