Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
People can talk all they want about how ugly the Wii's graphics are going to be but, the 360 graphics really aren't that spectacular in most of the games I have played. For the most part I thought the Cube's graphics were pretty nice and I'm sure the Wii's will be even better considering they are double the Cube's specs. Resident Evil 4 by no means is ugly and that's only a mere Gamecube game, if I can expect better than that, you won't hear a peep out of me about the Wii's technical prowess.
My question to everybody: At what point did not as good as Microsoft and Sony become ugly? It's funny but I think the people who love Nintendo the most are the harshest on Nintendo's decisions.
I never said Wii or GameCube games were ugly. I was responding to someone who said that all he cared about was how the games played, not how they looked.
Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
Ruby you are also forgetting research and development, I am willing to bet that was tremendously high. The price of the controller has more included in it than the basic parts used to create it. Regarding graphics, it is funny because the first party games I've seen don't look at ugly at all but in fact look visually appealing, whether it be Mario Galaxy, Project Hammer or Excitetruck.
I consider R&D to be a one-time investment in Nintendo's vision of the future, not a material cost of the hardware. And Nintendo has always had that running. It comes out of Nintendo's (very healthy) bottom line. Did SNES owners have to pay for the botched SNES CD? Were we paying an increased price for the N64 hardware because of the 64DD, or experiments with analog? Of course not. How about the Virtual Boy development? Which console paid for that one? Was the GameCube hardware expensive because of all that "connectivity" reasearch? Of course, Iwata has been talking about making us pay for it this time.
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
When Microsoft loses money on each X360 sold, and is currently trying to reduce manufacturing costs such that THEY can save money, not consumers, then you have to wonder if a mass market price console with X360 level capabilities is possible.
The X360 must cost somewhere around $450 to manufacture, but a $150 loss on each unit is still quite below what analysts have guessed the situation is. And Microsoft lost $6 billion last gen, and are ready to lose another $6 billion this time around: they're only expecting their games division to profit with their third console. Sony likewise has said that when all is said and done, it will take them 5 years to break even on the PS3, much like it took them 5 years to break even on the PS2.
With hardware getting this expensive, for both manufacturer's AND consumers, it can easily be imagined that XBox 360 graphics come at too high a cost for all involved.
It's one year in, an MS is rumored to be considering a $100 price cut. That'd be $200 for the Retard Pack. And looking at the price speculation threads, some of you are lining up to pay $250 for Wii hardware that isn't even in the same
league as it. Yes, MS is losing money on the Xbox360 hardware. But they've also got a number of extras that would be cut in a Nintendo console, like a hard drive, HD, and a headset with
two of those terribly expensive speakers and a microphone.
Would you agree that the GameCube hit the "sweet spot" in terms of the most power for your money? And that it came in at $200? Moore's Law says that computers can double in strength every 18 months (yes, I know, it doesn't exactly apply to every situation). I don't see how anyone can think that five years later, a GameCube x2, at $200-250 is the best hardware Nintendo could possibly hope for.
Show Posts
I do not see why Nintendo would choose Spokane versus the highly-populated Seattle area (which Nintendo is located in). I guess they wanted to choose a location that would be within resonable distance for multiple states. Still, I don't think I will be making it. Here's to hoping Wii will be released before November 2nd.
