Author Topic: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?  (Read 71115 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mario

  • IWATA BOAT!?
  • Score: 8
    • View Profile
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #50 on: January 31, 2007, 10:27:09 PM »
Don't bother with Pittboii, here I expose some biased thinking!
Quote

While the future of Wii gaming is largely still a mystery outside of Nintendo 1st party games, both the Xbox360 and PS3 have MAJOR titles on the horizon that are guaranteed to be both fun and stunning to look at.

While the future of PS3 and X360 gaming is still a mystery outside of Halo 3, MGS4 and FFXIII, the Wii has MAJOR titles on the horizon that are guaranteed to be both fun and stunning to look at.

Offline Pittbboi

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #51 on: February 01, 2007, 03:28:40 AM »
Quote

If you still think that remakes and rehashes are the future then I guess nothing anyone can say will ever change your mind. But that's okay, most people are afraid of change. Hopefully you'll outgrow it before you allow your fear to destroy something you could potentially love just because it's different.


And if you think the gaming public as a whole it going to go "Metal Gear?? Final Fantasy?? I don't want that! It's not the future! Give me MARIO! Give me Wii Music! THAT'S the future!" Then you're just kidding yourself. Nintendo may be the great innovator, but if you think that so far it's done enough to render those two games I just mentioned obsolete then you're so far up Nintendo's a** and so removed from the actual state of gaming nothing I could say could change your mind.

I don't think those games are the future, far from it. However, those games are tried and true classics that are guaranteed to sell BIG. They're guaranteed to innovate, be fun, AND be great looking games (most likely the best looking when released). I love Nintendo, and I'm more in line with their gaming philosophy than with anyone else's. But I am not blind enough to think that just because they created a radical new controller to realize their vision that theirs is the only console on which innovation can happen this gen. And they have to be ready for that.

You think Nintendo isn't releasing the same game over and over? How's Nintendo INNOVATING by releasing compilations of mini-games back to back? How's Nintendo innovating by once again relying on their classic mascots to sell their consoles? How's Nintendo innovating with a controller that so far hasn't delivered on that promise it made back when it was unveiled? I DO believe that Nintendo is closer to what the future of gaming should be than Sony or MS, but no way can you possibly think it's there yet. None of these games truly show us what the future of gaming is or what the future of the Wii is. We're still getting wonky, debatable gesture control and graphics not removed from last gen. And there are still important genres that the controller hasn't proven itself with yet.

Where are those games that look great AND are doing amazing and truly revolutionary things with a controller that is very much capable (instead of just replacing "press ABBA" with "draw a heart")? Nintendo can't compete with the graphics of the other consoles, that's been established. But the ace up its sleeve is the promise of new and different gaming experiences that change the way we think about games. We've gotten fun games so far (and a lot of not so fun games), but we haven't got THAT yet. And Nintendo's going to need THAT if it wants to really compete with the major titles coming up. Mario with a water pack didn't save the Cube. Mario in space isn't going to catapult the Wii anywhere either.

Quote

While the future of PS3 and X360 gaming is still a mystery outside of Halo 3, MGS4 and FFXIII, the Wii has MAJOR titles on the horizon that are guaranteed to be both fun and stunning to look at.


And what are those major titles? I'd like to know. Project Hammer?  The last two generations proved that Nintendo's first party mascots won't save a system. I hate to be all doom and gloom here. Really, I do. It just bothers me that most people are already considering Nintendo the victor. They've still got a lot of work left to do. This gen is not in the bag for them yet, but it can be.    

Offline BigJim

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #52 on: February 01, 2007, 04:00:06 AM »
You see Pittbboi, I sorta got tired of having this type of conversation since many adopt Nintendo's PR language as a matter of fact and structure discussions on its basis. Where else can you find peeps concerned more about the next game for their grandparents and Nintendo's profitability than games and products made for them?

So just understand the bubble you speak in when an opinion gets dismissed for not being consistent with "the message", and let it slide.
"wow."

Offline bustin98

  • Bustin' out kids
  • Score: 30
    • View Profile
    • Web Design Web Hosting Computer Sales and Service
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #53 on: February 01, 2007, 04:56:31 AM »
My wife will not turn into a gamer by Gears of War. She just might with Cooking Mama.

That's Nintendo's thing. And in the meantime, Metroid, Mario, and Zelda fill some needs that I have. Not all. The 360 has games that I enjoy. But they are the same games I have been playing for the past 5 or 6 years, played the same way. If the Wii can produce games that challenge in ways no other system can, then bring it on.

Stop the sooth saying. No one can determine the future just by way the bones are scattered.

Of course, there's the fact that this is a Nintendo fan site. Anyone coming here to dis Nintendo isn't going to meet many friends.

Offline segagamer12

  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #54 on: February 01, 2007, 05:01:02 AM »
>>>that Xbox360 and even the PS3 have coming<<<


THAT is all I am going to regfute, yor argument was the Wii will not be better than GC, adn then you through THAT out there to prove your piont, DUH the Wii Will NEVER look as good as those IT CANT, thast not even debatable and if you try and argue that your dumb cuz you dont understand the differences between the systems.


The Wii DOESNT all look bad right now, have you even SEEN COD3 or DBZBT2? have you even SEEN videos and screans for MP3 or Brawl? they look better than the GC versions so that tells us something. What Wii games have you played?

Galaxy I wont comment on because its a different environment and its hard to compare space and planets to tropical settings so its not that easy to distinguish right now, except the characters look better so far so that says something.



OK so YES it is true right now most games that people recognise look like GC games, MArvel Ultimate Alliance is another that comes to mind that looks better than what GC could do. Seriously juts cuz they dont look as good as 360 doesnt mean they dont look good.

Persoanly I didnt like excittrucks gfx and thought they could use imrpovments, I thought red steel looked bad, and Wii Sports look fantastic out side the Miis.


I have yet to see a  game that blows me away, although Marvel Ultimate Allience lookd pretty damn good, that doesnt mean they look BAD.

So what is yor point anywyas, are you complaining the Wii isnt as compareble to PS3 and 360 or its not better than GC? seriously whats your argument you seam to flip flop on that.


I dont buy the blue ocean BS one bit, out side Wii sports non of the other non games appeal to me, I dont consider Wario ware at all, and Wii music, etc not for me. BUT I might get Wii Play cuz of the shooting game and the extra controller. So far there have been plenty of good looking gamer games and plenty more on the way. Mk Armageddon looks pretty good so dont count that out. Just give it more time. And its been said before but it is true, 360 launch games didnt look that much better than xbox games so why shoudl wii launch games look much better than GC games? I mean there ARE games already that look good so why complain? I want games to look thier best and I hope they get better but I have seen enough to settle any fears or doubts I may have had.
You can call me
THE RAT thank you very much
check out http://www.myspace.com/phatrat1982

Offline Pittbboi

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #55 on: February 01, 2007, 05:43:22 AM »
Quote

So what is yor point anywyas, are you complaining the Wii isnt as compareble to PS3 and 360 or its not better than GC? seriously whats your argument you seam to flip flop on that.



I haven't flip flopped on my argument since my first post here. I think I should be asking you what your point is.

Offline couchmonkey

  • I tye dyed my Wii and I love it
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #56 on: February 01, 2007, 06:46:20 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: BigJim
You see Pittbboi, I sorta got tired of having this type of conversation since many adopt Nintendo's PR language as a matter of fact and structure discussions on its basis. Where else can you find peeps concerned more about the next game for their grandparents and Nintendo's profitability than games and products made for them?

So just understand the bubble you speak in when an opinion gets dismissed for not being consistent with "the message", and let it slide.


I get concerned with granparents and profitability because it's the path to more and better games for me in general.  PS2 is inundated with crap for its large casual fanbase, but it's also inundated with awesome third party titles that I'd like to play - that's the benefit of being market leader.

The other implication is that my reasoning about Nintendo's business is flawed because I'm buying into Nintendo's PR.  I'm sure there's some truth to that, and yet, everything that has happened since last May supports my conclusions: Wii is very popular, and it's expanding the market.  The common argument is that we don't know if Nintendo has won yet.  This is true, but by the same token, we can't say that Wii's selling points are going to suddenly stop mattering.

If we want to talk strictly about what's good for me as a gamer, I'm frankly way more interested in Wii than the other consoles.  To my mind, the graphics don't justify the cost of buying the other consoles - I'd rather buy a PS2.  Wii is considered overpriced by most gamers because we have the knowledge to say, "Hey, there's no way this technology is worth $250."  But as a customer, I was glad to pay that much, and I'd pay even more, because I'm paying for the gaming, not the technology.  The gaming is good - the best I've experienced in at least 10 years.  That's a subjective thing, not everyone will agree with me, but personally, my only complaint about Wii is that the first half of this year is so slow for new games - which is typical.

Edit: And on the original topic, I consider Wii to be in the same graphical category as the last-gen systems.  It might not even be better than Xbox, but I stopped caring a long time ago.  The games look fine to me.
That's my opinion, not yours.
Now Playing: The Adventures of Link, Super Street Fighter 4, Dragon Quest IX

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #57 on: February 01, 2007, 07:23:05 AM »
Last I saw, MGS3 was crushed by GTA and Halo2 in 2004.  So you could scratch MGS4 off the list of potential blockbusters.  However, MGS, FF, Halo, etc can be viewed as "Maddens" for different audiences.  As the past couple gens have shown, just because the games seem destined to sell (or do sell) doesn't necessarily make them special, including Nintendo's games.  So don't keep shoving us this "they're guaranteed to innovate and be fun" crap, cuz that's jumping the gun as much as Nintendo victory non-game camp.

"They're guaranteed to sell".  Stop right there, cuz anything more is opinionated speculative uncertainty.

But I'm jumping the gun here too:  the extent of those sales isn't even a certainty.

Selling to your last generation audience can garner a decent chunk of sales (still in the millions).  That's typical and obvious.  What's not obivous is will these people buy their supposed HD next gen game system in time to matter.
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline GoldenPhoenix

  • Now it's a party!
  • Score: 42
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #58 on: February 01, 2007, 07:26:05 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: BigJim
You see Pittbboi, I sorta got tired of having this type of conversation since many adopt Nintendo's PR language as a matter of fact and structure discussions on its basis. Where else can you find peeps concerned more about the next game for their grandparents and Nintendo's profitability than games and products made for them?

So just understand the bubble you speak in when an opinion gets dismissed for not being consistent with "the message", and let it slide.


Profitability for Nintendo should be important because without it Nintendo would go down. This crap about us just wanting games for their grandparents is just that, crap, elitist crap at that. Many of these so called "grandparent" games have alot to offer to everyone, like Wiisports, WarioWare, Brain Age etc etc. We are still getting the so called "gamer" games, like Zelda, Mario, Smash Brothers etc but for once there is more variety. I'm sorry but last generation got really stale, there were barely any simple, yet addictive games, all were trying to be the next cookie cutter sci-fi action, beat em up, shoot dogs, people, and the mailman games (ok maybe not all those) but with the Wii and the DS things are starting to get mixed up again. Finally we are getting games that we can have a blast playing with our family, unless you are an elitist snob who won't touch something "casual".
Switch Friend Code: SW-4185-3173-1144

Offline Kairon

  • T_T
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 48
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #59 on: February 01, 2007, 07:36:54 AM »
I typed this up last night but my internet gave out. Fortunately, I saved a copy!

Quote



What console out there is being "pushed forward" by hardcore gamers and their high tie-in ratios? That's actually BAD according to some...

Quote

The report further adds that the Xbox 360's high software attach rate is “a damning commentary on the limited hardware installed base, most of whom are hard-core gamers.” The analysts add that what is actually needed by Microsoft for its latest console, as well as by third party software publishers, is “quicker adoption of hardware and a rapidly growing installed base on which to sell progressively more game units,” rather than just more games sold per existing Xbox 360 owner.


But that's the beauty of it, see? It's the long tail at work! Sure those many non-gamers and casuals NATURALLY have a lower software tie-in rate. But according to the long tail, all of those aggregated small sales cumulatively overcome the minorities large purchases.

Quote

In these distributions a high-frequency or high-amplitude population is followed by a low-frequency or low-amplitude population which gradually "tails off." In many cases the infrequent or low-amplitude events—the long tail, represented here by the yellow portion of the graph—can cumulatively outnumber or outweigh the initial portion of the graph, such that in aggregate they comprise the majority.

...

An Amazon employee described the Long Tail as follows: "We sold more books today that didn't sell at all yesterday than we sold today of all the books that did sell yesterday."[5] In the same sense, the user-edited internet encyclopedia Wikipedia has many low popularity articles that, collectively, create a higher quantity of demand than a limited number of mainstream articles found in a conventional encyclopedia such as the Encyclopædia Britannica.


You know, I bet the PS2 had a real low tie-in ratio in the end...

Look, gamers, like you an' me, we're awesome. AWESOME. But we're just a handful of consumers out of many. And as Nintendo fans, we should have learnt humility by now: our small collection of fanbois is dwarfed by the vast majority of "others" out there, including other hardcore gamers, casual gamers, mainstream gamers, niche gamers, PC gamers, and moms buying systems for their 7 year olds with a minimum of research done beforehand.

And this population, in turn, is dwarfed by non-gamers, lapsed gamers, middle-aged people, and other sorts who've never played videogames before. Oh, and GIRLS. Yeah, there are like, as many girls as guys out there... funny huh?

You and me, we'll buy the next Zelda and Mario. But these non-gamers? They'll cumulatively have so much more purchasing power than us, and though blockbusters from their crowd will become rarer as the market matures, the cumulated sales of their games will overwhelm our strong but few blockbusters and they'll start driving change in the industry.

Already we can see how it's non-gamers, not gamers, who are driving changes. The Wii has non-gaming functions (news, weather, internet, photos, etc.), the PS2 played movies (argh... my fanboi-ness hates me for saying that) and the DS has a touch screen and microphone that enabled Nintendogs and Brain Age. Oh, and the wiimote was made with non-gamers in mind.

Oh... and Miyamoto isn't a tech guy, he didn't play D n D or nuttin' like that. He's not a programmer... he's a trained artist, a gardener, an outsider. I personally suspect that the next breakout game designer won't be deeply steeped in gaming lore, (in my experience, a lot of gamers steeped in their hobby are... highly dependent on things that have come before) but someone who can freshen things up and introduce new directions and see things in a new light, free of the conventions that we're asll so familiar with.

So.... uh... sorry. I rambled on. I also stopped for like an hour to help my roomie with HW... eheh...

So, in conclusion, don't be stuck in the blockbuster mentality when looking at the big picture, and us hardcore gamers already have been marginalized in the advances we've been seeing from Nintendo, influences that in the DS and Wii are seen in the touch screen and wiimote.




Basically, let me try to say this another way...

I want more epic games from Nintendo. And I'm pretty sure we'll get 'em, aren't you? It's just that a huge paradigm shift like the wiimote isn't overnight. How long did it take third parties to get their camera system down when they switched to 3D with the N64? How long will it take them to utilize the wiimote correctly after Nintendo nailed it with Wii sports? Shorter I hope, because I can't wait to carve snow by tilting my nunchuck in SSX Blur, I can't wait to use the wiimote as a state switch for my attacks in No More Heroes, and I can't wait for an Iron Chef game that is a seamless course of minigames instead of pre-dictated and chopped up and graded ever 10 seconds. And I can't wait to see what the next Zelda will be, because it certainly won't be the "Zelda-as-we-know-it," remember?

So traditional games aren't the problem, really. It's just a matter of time until developers ramp up.

The problem is what happens ASIDE from that. The wiimote was meant for more than just revolutionizing games, it was meant for revolutionizing the game market. Nintendo's said that if they sold more than GameCube, and made money, but failed to expand the market, that they'd have failed. They set the rubric for themselves at the success of bringing in new people, people who won't necessarily buy as many games as us, but people who, according to their numbers and the long tail effect, matter just as much or even more than we do profitwise.

People who are different, but by virtue of their differences can encourage us to grow beyond ourselves and can encourage videogames to grow beyond what they are now. Yes, they're different, yes, they're new, yes, they don't want the same things we do. But they are asd much a fabric of this world as we are, and they deserve the same attention any of us does, and they just want different things is all. And whether they buy those different things 30,000 copies at a time, or 100,000, it all adds up.

I think I have about 14 Wii games on me (my life savings! &< /cry), but my Mom plays Bejeweled on her cell phone every night for hours before sleeping, she plays it so we can hear the beeping from across the house, and she deserves games just as much as I do. She deserved it when she kicked my butt in Dr. Mario, and she deserves it now.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com  
Carmine Red, Associate Editor

A glooming peace this morning with it brings;
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head:
Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished:
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Sega and her Mashiro.

Offline Hocotate

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #60 on: February 01, 2007, 09:12:11 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: denjet78

Dude! Get over yourself! You sound like Ian for gods sake!


Uh-oh, don't encourage him, thats exactly what he wants to hear. Pittbboi claims to be like Ian, though I think pretty much everyone would hold Ian in a much higher regard.

Quote

there are several key words that are conveniently missing from your quotes of me.

Read those quoted sentences again and show me what key words are missing that changes their meaning.

I feel you are putting too much faith in a few games that won't be released for a long time to bring the PS3 out on top. MGS4 will see a spike in sales, but it will not be enough to bring it over the Wii. It'll be in the top 10 for a while but drop off rather quickly. FFXIII has been confirmed as a 2008 JPN release which means a late 08- early 09 release in the US at best (Keep in mind it was 3 years since the first screens of FFXII were shown to it's release) so expect delays here as well. That is just way too late in the gen to push the PS3 ahead of the Wii in any region.

I swear with your constant negative statements about Nintendo (even now with the current state of the industry) at a Nintendo forum leads me to believe you are simply trolling. The occasional "Nintendo is my favorite" is thrown in here and there to hide it imo.
Currently Playing: Twilight Princess(Wii), Castlevania: PoR(DS), Mario vs. Donkey Kong2(DS), Wii sports(Wii)
Anticipating: Mario Galaxy(Wii), Blue Dragon(360), Dragon Quest:Swords(Wii), Dragon Quest IX (DS)

Offline Pittbboi

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #61 on: February 01, 2007, 09:16:14 AM »
Quote

Uh-oh, don't encourage him, thats exactly what he wants to hear. Pittbboi claims to be like Ian, though I think pretty much everyone would hold Ian in a much higher regard.

Seriously, don't you have something better to do?

You talk a big talk about how I'm making statements about the future that can't be confirmed in one way or the other, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing.  

Offline Kairon

  • T_T
  • NWR Staff Pro
  • Score: 48
    • View Profile
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #62 on: February 01, 2007, 09:29:11 AM »
Geez guys. I mean... geez.

~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Carmine Red, Associate Editor

A glooming peace this morning with it brings;
The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head:
Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things;
Some shall be pardon'd, and some punished:
For never was a story of more woe
Than this of Sega and her Mashiro.

Offline Hocotate

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #63 on: February 01, 2007, 11:42:35 AM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Pittbboi


You talk a big talk about how I'm making statements about the future that can't be confirmed in one way or the other, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing.


Final Fantasy XIII confirmed for 2008
Currently Playing: Twilight Princess(Wii), Castlevania: PoR(DS), Mario vs. Donkey Kong2(DS), Wii sports(Wii)
Anticipating: Mario Galaxy(Wii), Blue Dragon(360), Dragon Quest:Swords(Wii), Dragon Quest IX (DS)

Offline Pittbboi

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #64 on: February 01, 2007, 12:09:55 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Hocotate
Quote

Originally posted by: Pittbboi


You talk a big talk about how I'm making statements about the future that can't be confirmed in one way or the other, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing.


Final Fantasy XIII confirmed for 2008


This is incredibly childish. I'm done with you after this post.

I was more thinking about this:

"MGS4 will see a spike in sales, but it will not be enough to bring it over the Wii. It'll be in the top 10 for a while but drop off rather quickly. FFXIII has been confirmed as a 2008 JPN release which means a late 08- early 09 release in the US at best (Keep in mind it was 3 years since the first screens of FFXII were shown to it's release) so expect delays here as well."

You can say what you want, but your posts are just as full of conjecture as you claim mine to be. We're just aiming at two different things.

Oh, and Square isn't usually known for delaying their FF games to Nintendo-like lengths. I'd say FFXII is an exception, which is understandable seeing as they had to swap developers halfway through.

Offline Hocotate

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #65 on: February 01, 2007, 01:50:02 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: Pittbboi


You talk a big talk about how I'm making statements about the future that can't be confirmed in one way or the other, and then you turn around and do the exact same thing.


Show me where I've said that to you.

Quote

there are several key words that are conveniently missing from your quotes of me.


"Read those quoted sentences again and show me what key words are missing that changes their meaning." And you still fail to answer this as well.

Go ahead and be done, we'll come back after MGS4 is released and see who was right.
Currently Playing: Twilight Princess(Wii), Castlevania: PoR(DS), Mario vs. Donkey Kong2(DS), Wii sports(Wii)
Anticipating: Mario Galaxy(Wii), Blue Dragon(360), Dragon Quest:Swords(Wii), Dragon Quest IX (DS)

Offline BigJim

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #66 on: February 01, 2007, 02:30:37 PM »
Quote

I get concerned with granparents and profitability because it's the path to more and better games for me in general.


Quote

Profitability for Nintendo should be important because without it Nintendo would go down.


If Nintendo were to profit "only" $500 million for the year by making the necessary investments to offer (for example) an HD-capable console, rather than their $600 million, I would say they don't need our well-wishes. They're far from doom. Profitability is a regularly used defense mechanism for any number of things because Nintendo brought it up in their PR in the past, particularly when they were struggling to compete. At this point it's adopted language unless one's definition of financial solvency is nothing short of having a swimming pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck... which approximates what Nintendo's $7 billion looks like in my mind.

Quote

everything that has happened since last May supports my conclusions: Wii is very popular, and it's expanding the market.


Expanding their demographic, yes. The market at large has still been sucking up PS2s and 360s too.

Quote

Finally we are getting games that we can have a blast playing with our family, unless you are an elitist snob who won't touch something "casual".


Ironically, many of Nintendo fanboys are some of the more elitist I've seen, next to some Mac users. And I've been online since the 80's.  
"wow."

Offline denjet78

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #67 on: February 01, 2007, 03:07:36 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: BigJim
If Nintendo were to profit "only" $500 million for the year by making the necessary investments to offer (for example) an HD-capable console, rather than their $600 million, I would say they don't need our well-wishes. They're far from doom. Profitability is a regularly used defense mechanism for any number of things because Nintendo brought it up in their PR in the past, particularly when they were struggling to compete. At this point it's adopted language unless one's definition of financial solvency is nothing short of having a swimming pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck... which approximates what Nintendo's $7 billion looks like in my mind.


I have only one major problem with this statement and that's that you're assuming it wouldn't cost Nintendo much to do things like Sony and MS. Sony is expecting to loose around 2 BILLION on the PS3 it's first year alone. That's just year one. What about year 2? Year 3? MS had to tank more than 5 BILLION just to edge out the GC last generation. And how much have they lost on the 360 so far? And rumors are circulating that they may, or may not, have finally MAYBE started turning a profit. And that will probably go down the toilet once the 360 revision unit that's rumored to be coming out soon is released.

Nintendo may be sitting on a 7 billion war chest but if they were to blow it all on a Sony or MS style system that would be it for them. Had they released the original XBox, Nintendo would be gone today. They would be 3rd party, or more likely carved up into smaller developers and sold off piece by piece.

Nintendo ONLY HAS that 7 billion. MS has so much money at their disposal that it would be impossible to even try to quantify it. Sony isn't quite as huge but they certainly have the deep pockets to completely obliterate Nintendo if they tried to come at them with the same marketing style that they use.

Point being, Nintendo HAS to make money. And they HAVE to make a lot of it. There's no way they could absorb the major loses that the competition can. It's just not possible.

Besides, Sony and MS are making all-in-one set-top-boxes and they're not all that worried about making a profit today because they're expecting the money to come rolling in when people are using their future systems to stream movies, music, internet. Nintendo makes GAMES and in 10 years when Sony and MS have moved on to greener pastures Nintendo will still be here making games. If they can't make a profit now focusing on that single market, how do you expect them to do it in the future?

To put it bluntly, Nintendo really is in a completely different market than their so-called competition.

Remember that.

Offline MarioAllStar

  • Weird and Wonderful
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #68 on: February 01, 2007, 03:21:19 PM »
Good post, denjet78. It is funny how the big companies take the conservative approach and lose billions, while the underdog thinks outside of the box and turns profits from day one. In actuality, the "safe" approach doesn't bring success. Microsoft and Sony are not failing in the sense that they lack marketshare, but financially their video gaming policies are not helping them out.
Thanks for listening.

Offline segagamer12

  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #69 on: February 01, 2007, 03:27:06 PM »
I dont know, Sony has been TRYING for 10 years to put Nintendo out of business and they have't succeeded yet. Nintendo has other assests besides Wii and GC so that doesnt mean much. They didnt start out a game company why shoudl they remian ONLY a game company if the future doesnt allow for it.

BUT the point everyone keeps forgetting is NONE of us know how much it would cost Nintendo to do HD, end of story. Seriously you can crunch numbers all day but not one of us knows the truth to any of the figures. whatever thier reason for not going hd is thier business not ours. besdies its not like it affects the games anyways, the Wii can do widescreen and progressive scan which looks good enough.

Maybe I havent seen a  360 running on an HD tv so I dont see a big difference between wii and 360 right now either, except a couple games, but the truth is most people who own a  360 havent either. so whats the difference. Now if the Wii is out for a year and the games barely look better than GC then we have room to complain, right now we have games that look good enough and games on the way that look better than what we have now so theoretically it should keep getting better.  
You can call me
THE RAT thank you very much
check out http://www.myspace.com/phatrat1982

Offline ShyGuy

  • Fight Me!
  • *
  • Score: -9660
    • View Profile
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #70 on: February 01, 2007, 03:30:31 PM »
Dewy is stronger than Xbox!1

Offline denjet78

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #71 on: February 01, 2007, 03:41:35 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: MarioAllStar
Good post, denjet78. It is funny how the big companies take the conservative approach and lose billions, while the underdog thinks outside of the box and turns profits from day one. In actuality, the "safe" approach doesn't bring success. Microsoft and Sony are not failing in the sense that they lack marketshare, but financially their video gaming policies are not helping them out.


To be honest, Sony's and MS' ideas for the future may indeed bring them huge, unimaginable profits... maybe. And that's a big maybe. The problem is that all these technology companies are currently fighting over who's going to own that future, and splintering the market in the mean time, when in the end the only way that it's going to happen is if they all work together. Why do you think the cellphone infrastructure in the US is falling so far behind other countries? Too many companies jocking for control when cooperation is what's going to be needed to bring the future to fruition.

Offline denjet78

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #72 on: February 01, 2007, 03:55:11 PM »
Quote

Originally posted by: segagamer12
I dont know, Sony has been TRYING for 10 years to put Nintendo out of business and they have't succeeded yet. Nintendo has other assests besides Wii and GC so that doesnt mean much. They didnt start out a game company why shoudl they remian ONLY a game company if the future doesnt allow for it.

BUT the point everyone keeps forgetting is NONE of us know how much it would cost Nintendo to do HD, end of story. Seriously you can crunch numbers all day but not one of us knows the truth to any of the figures. whatever thier reason for not going hd is thier business not ours. besdies its not like it affects the games anyways, the Wii can do widescreen and progressive scan which looks good enough.

Maybe I havent seen a  360 running on an HD tv so I dont see a big difference between wii and 360 right now either, except a couple games, but the truth is most people who own a  360 havent either. so whats the difference. Now if the Wii is out for a year and the games barely look better than GC then we have room to complain, right now we have games that look good enough and games on the way that look better than what we have now so theoretically it should keep getting better.


Your points are noted and taken, and are very much true.

However, it is possible to infer how much it would cost Nintendo to jump into the HD arena as well. The Wii would probably have had to cost close to $400 right out of the box. No game included. Considering that's how much the 360 actually cost MS to produce, not what they sold it for, we can gage that around $400 is the sweet spot for getting HD off the ground in your system. At least today. And the reason I say that is because people would have an absolute heart attack if Nintendo went HD without the graphical upgrade to keep up with the Joneses as well. People are complaining right now but they're giving it some leeway because the system doesn't do HD.

And at $400, just how many Wiis do you think would be sold right now, even with the new Wiimote? Nowhere near as many. The Wiimote is of course the system's greatest strength, but the price is as well. Put it up against a fully featured 360 or PS3 and it looks almost like an impulse purchase. And yes Nintendo is making a profit off the system right now, but not very much. If they were taking home $100+ on each unit sold an launch you would more than have the right to bitch and moan all you wanted about Nintendo being cheap. But that's not what's happening. I've heard anything from $5-20 profit on each system. That's not a huge amount of money at all. But at least it's not a $200-300 loss.

Offline darknight06

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #73 on: February 01, 2007, 05:48:48 PM »
Quote

And at $400, just how many Wiis do you think would be sold right now, even with the new Wiimote? Nowhere near as many.


My opinion, I'll put it to you this way.  If the Wii was $400 I wouldn't have bothered  for the same reason I haven't jumped on the 360 or especially the PS3 bandwagon.  I don't give a crap what a game console claims to do at that point it's no longer justifiable.  No video GAME system in general, I don't care if it does have the success of the PS2 is EVER going to be worth all of that. And you better believe that there's a lot of people out there who at a price like that would also have left it on the shelf.  They're f*cking games, not food.

Offline oohhboy

  • Forum Friend or Foe?
  • Score: 38
    • View Profile
RE: Wii stronger then the first Xbox ?
« Reply #74 on: February 01, 2007, 11:11:53 PM »
The question that should have been asked 70+ posts ago should have been "Was the original Xbox more powerful than the GC".
I'm Lacus. I'm fine as Lacus!
Pffh. Toilet paper? What do you think cats are for?