posted
You did say "64 bit = higher polygon count," which is not true. And this:
quote:I simply said 64 bit = higher potential for looks
Is still not true. Again, being 64-bit has nothing to do with "power," "speed," or quality of output in this context. The "bitness" of a processor determines how much memory (physical + virtual) it can address; a 32-bit processor can address up to 4 GB of memory, whereas the limit for a 64-bit processor is much higher.
It may seem like a quibble, but it's a very common misinterpretation, and companies often use it as a marketing bullet point. Apple did it with the PowerPC 970, for example, which in addition to being pretty fast for its time, was a 64-bit processor -- but the operating system it shipped with and almost all of the applications were still 32-bit. "64-bitness" didn't matter. It's only now, in 2006, that 64-bit computing is becoming relevant to more than a tiny, tiny minority of users.
In other words, we don't actually disagree about very much, I'm just trying to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: My husband and I couldn't be less into "gaming", but he's been hanging on every snippet of news about the Wii, and just this morning was talking about pre-ordering it with overnight shipping from Amazon. We're already imagining parties involving groups of friends and Wii tennis.
I think this bodes well for Nintendo.
It sounds like you are exactly the market Nintendo has been trying to reach out to. With the Wii they're not so much trying to take a bite out of the already established "gamer" market as much as bringing casual gamers or non-gamers.
I think the degree to which this works will determine the Wii's success or failure far more than competing for Xbox or Playstation customers, many of whom already have their minds made up.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: You did say "64 bit = higher polygon count," which is not true. And this:
quote:I simply said 64 bit = higher potential for looks
Is still not true. Again, being 64-bit has nothing to do with "power," "speed," or quality of output in this context. The "bitness" of a processor determines how much memory (physical + virtual) it can address; a 32-bit processor can address up to 4 GB of memory, whereas the limit for a 64-bit processor is much higher.
It may seem like a quibble, but it's a very common misinterpretation, and companies often use it as a marketing bullet point. Apple did it with the PowerPC 970, for example, which in addition to being pretty fast for its time, was a 64-bit processor -- but the operating system it shipped with and almost all of the applications were still 32-bit. "64-bitness" didn't matter. It's only now, in 2006, that 64-bit computing is becoming relevant to more than a tiny, tiny minority of users.
In other words, we don't actually disagree about very much, I'm just trying to clear up what appears to be a misunderstanding.
posted
You were totally right about the N64's higher polygon throughput, though. I had to look that one up. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE: Nintendo was claiming the system was to be a budget system. ... Hmm... $630 just to play super smash brothers without having to use that retarded controller they came up with.
Bugdet system - my ass. Especially considering it's nothing more than a Gamecube 1.5a than a true follow up.
Besides the fact that all of your price points are exaggerations to try to prove your point, Brian Hill pointed something out:
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill It depends on the controller. If it is everything they claim it is, then it the wii will be very successful. I'm betting that there are a whole lot of people like me who prefer a fun playing experience to plain old eye candy. If the wiimote sucks, then the system will flop.
If you had read anything about the Wii (which, judging by your price exaggerations, you haven't), you'd see that all reports from the gaming press are saying that the Remote is as good as Nintendo claims, as opposed to the "crappy" controller you have absolutely no experience with.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eldrad: If you had read anything about the Wii (which, judging by your price exaggerations, you haven't), you'd see that all reports from the gaming press are saying that the Remote is as good as Nintendo claims, as opposed to the "crappy" controller you have absolutely no experience with.
Exaggerations? Are you cakefilled?
$250 for a console $40 for half a controller $20 for the other half $20 to $25 for the legacy pad $60 games
Those aren't exaggerations. Those are stated PRICES. I went back and looked at my previous calculation, and it seems I added in one too many $60 controller combos, so yeah subtract $60 from the $630 I stated.
$570 is still not a good price. Considering what you get, it's not the best bang for your buck.
Now, to the nitwits who claim I'm rushing out to buy a PS3 or that I claim it's better - please quote where I actually said that. Your "DATA" on that is incorrect.
I'm not saying it's too expensive, I'm saying it's NOT WORTH IT. How much I spend on my TV or whatever - that has ZERO to do with this discussion, The price point of the Revolution has everything to do with the fact that the Revolution - as it stands - is not worth the cash they are asking for it, especially because Nintendo claimed it was going to be a 'budget' system.
Yeah the system itself is budgeted well - but they rape you on the additional peripherals that are REQUIRED TO ENABLE MULTIPLAYER. The machine was NAMED the Wii because Nintendo touted multi as the selling point. "Wii play together, but not without our extra controllers that are really expensive."
And what do they do? Give us one controller and charge $60 for another? Are you telling me that if Microsoft or Sony broke their controllers in half, and charged $40 for the left half, and $20 for the right - you wouldn't be jumping down their throats? Bull.
Don't even try to think Nintendo is aiming for the 'non-gamer' demographic like thatone person who crapped thier pants at the Tennis game (which is a glorified demo, fyi). Nintendo isn't targeting them - they are targeting morons that will be willing to shell out $5/$8 or $10 for games they:
A. Already have in cart form B. Suck C. They currently play on their PCs
The same morons that are willing to shell out $180 more just for controllers.
It's not worth the price when looking at the big picture, and that's not even considering that it's a piddley 'upgrade' system to the Gamecube.
Whoever mentioned that Metroid Prime 3 looked way better than their predecessors needs to gouge his or her eyes out. You obviously have no idea what the hell you're talking about. That screenshot is of the NextGeneration videogame, running on a NextGeneration videogame console - all the while looking like it's current generation relative.
That's not something to be proud of - it's something to be worried about.
HD is not someting that is 'gaining popularity'. Remember when "Available in Stereo" was 'gaining popularity'? Or Maybe when "Broadcast in color" was 'gaining popularity'? It isn't something of little importance, display and resolution is changing and more and more companies are adopting the HD standards over standard definition. Don't try to tell me it's of little importance when you're the one that isn't informed.
Nintendo claimed that "no one plays videogames online" so the Gamecube had little to no Online Capability. Well I guess that's a good thing for the Big N, I mean HELL.. Xbox Live was a complete bust for Microsoft, and Sony's online enabled games rarely have anyone playing them.
Online play is extremely popular not even counting the PC gamer, and it bit Nintendo in the ass.
Now Nintendo is saying that "no one plays games in HD" and that is complete and total BS. They removed the progressive scan port from their later run of Gamecubes because "no one used it". Had they supplied and ADVERTISED their ProgressiveScan component cables and not sold them or exorbitant prices - more people would have wised up and bought them.
This no-HD thing is going to bite them in the ass as well, but hey at least that one girl is gonna be happy playing tennis with 3 other bored people on her little 32 inch TV. Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still wrong. Wii (first-party games) are $50, tops.
And many games will require only the wiimote, for $40, which is $10 LESS than the X-Box 360 wireless controller, yet the Wii controller, even without the nunchuk has a fair bit of functionality in it.
Some games requiring only the wiimote: Wii Sports, "My First Wii" (or whatever it gets translated into here in the US), WarioWare, Excite Truck, GT Pro, and I assume Big Brain Acedemy.
Sure, most of us wil lget the $60 combo, but it's only $10 more a technologically inferior controller on a competing console.
Do I wwish the system had been 199 or 220, with two sets of controllers, and Wii Sports? Sure. But theis isn't quite so bad.
Once again, your argument hinges on the wiimote being crappy, despite nearly all the reviews claiming it works great, with a variety of games (sports, racing, adventure, puzzle, quirky [Elebits, and Katamari Damacy type game]).
HD is an inevitablility, I agree. But we won't see a majority of US consumers with one in their house until 2011, give or take a year. You can quote me on that. At that point, though, it will be just about time for Nintendo to come out with the Nintendo Wii ii, err, 2.
-Bok
EDIT: And once again you ignore the fact that the Virtual Console games are:
A. Easier to get and play than setting back up your old NES/SNES, and blowing in the cartridges B. Hey, some people have different tastes, and it isn't Nintendo's fault if people pay $5 for Root Beer Tapper C. Completely legal
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The strength of the Canadian dollar is finally having more of an impact. Nintendo Canada has announced the price of the Wii at $279.95 and games at $59.95.
posted
Unless you have one of the few multiplayer games that can use the nunchuck attachment and have more than 2 people over to play that game, you only need one or two nunchuck attachments. Subtract $40.
And as noted, you haven't listened. The price of each game is $50, that's straight from nintendo's site. In fact, several of the prices you cite don't seem to be from nintendo, so they might not be correct.
$250 for a wii, a wiimote, and a nunchuck attachment. $120 for another three wiimotes. $20 for another nunchuck. $50 for that multiplayer game you like. That's $420 for a great setup for multiplayer games with up to three friends. Yes, if you want to do certain games or do even more you might need to spend more, but for the games most people will be really wanting to play, the new, multiplayer games for the wii that mostly don't use the nunchuck attachment, they can spend $420 and be ready to play. Neither of the other next-gen consoles are nearly as cheap to set up for 4 players and a new multiplayer game.
NIntendo isn't saying its an affordable console for those who want to do anything and everything with it, they're saying its an affordable console for the typical user, outlined above, which it is.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nintendo's whole goal has been to produce a unique console experience that is at a price that isn't terribly outside the range of an average consumer (read a non-hardcore gamer). I think they've done that quite well. Their games for this coming generation of consoles are cheaper than the competitors by $10. Their controllers are cheaper for the basic unit (Wiimore for $40 compared to $50 for a wireless Xbox 360 controller), and still competitive for a "complete" unit ($60 for Wiimote and nunchuck attachment). Their console is $150 less than the good version of the Xbox 360 (and any real gamer will tell you the $300 Xbox 360 version is mostly a joke) and quite a bit less than either version of the PS3. I think they've done a good job at being competitively priced and offering a very unique experience. I personally can't wait for the Wii to be out. Of course then again, I've loved Nintendo all my life. Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Punjabee I know its only $10, but you are flat our WRONG about Nintendo produced Wii games. They are $49.99, third party games will charge as they see fit, but Nintendo makes MANY of its games so thats not that BIG of an issue.
But $10*X (X=# of games) if you buy say 2 games with your wii thats $20 you are overcharging.
Why don't you do the math for a PS3 and 3 controllers and 1 game when they actually announce the prices for that. While your at it congratulate Sony for putting more than 2 controller ports in their console this time. Realistically 7 years after Nintendo started doing it with great success.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, as of now, third parties are charging $49.99 as well. Activision announced it for sure for Marvel Ultimate Alliance, and EA has more or less echoed the sentiment. I don't see any third parties charging more than that, which is a definite good thing. Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Punjabee I know its only $10, but you are flat our WRONG about Nintendo produced Wii games. They are $49.99, third party games will charge as they see fit, but Nintendo makes MANY of its games so thats not that BIG of an issue.
But $10*X (X=# of games) if you buy say 2 games with your wii thats $20 you are overcharging.
Why don't you do the math for a PS3 and 3 controllers and 1 game when they actually announce the prices for that. While your at it congratulate Sony for putting more than 2 controller ports in their console this time. Realistically 7 years after Nintendo started doing it with great success.
You're not reading. I'm not saying the Ps3 is any more cost effective, as no absolute prices have been set. Please get that through your skull, if it helps - read that last part twice.
The Revolution, (not the PS3, not the Xbox360, not the DS, not the PSP) The REVOLUTION is not worth the price.
Read that one again please.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE: ow, to the nitwits who claim I'm rushing out to buy a PS3 or that I claim it's better - please quote where I actually said that. Your "DATA" on that is incorrect.
I'm not saying it's too expensive, I'm saying it's NOT WORTH IT.
I just want to quote myself for those of you who still haven't realized I'm not talking about this thing being 'expensive' or 'not expensive'.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: EDIT: And once again you ignore the fact that the Virtual Console games are:
A. Easier to get and play than setting back up your old NES/SNES, and blowing in the cartridges B. Hey, some people have different tastes, and it isn't Nintendo's fault if people pay $5 for Root Beer Tapper C. Completely legal
Once again you miss the point of why I mentioned the VC.
The virtual console is being aimed at these 'hardcore' gamers you mentioned, not the casual gamer. I doubt TennisGirl up there or any other gamer under the age of 20 has ever heard of The Guardian Legend or Terranigma. The reason for the VC - which will supposedly eventually include TG16 Genesis and other games from other companies - is for gamers who grew up on the stuff to purchase them and play them again.
The thing Nintendo hasn't counted on is the digital age - People that grew up on the games they are gouging most likely know how to run an emulator and download the ROM for it, negating your point of digging out the NES and SNES. There are a few ignorant people who don't know how to run ZSNES or FCEUltra, but not many.
The 2nd, and less advertised nature of the VC is for Nintendo/Sega/THC/Treasure/Square/Capcom/Midway and other companies to claim they are still 'making money' on these 20 year old games - therefore still enforcing their copyright on the games - protecting them from becoming abandonware.
No one but extreme fanboys, and idiots are going to pay $5 for Excitebike when a ROM is a download away. The prices are inane and way more than they should be for these older games, which will not even be portable. They will be hardcoded to each individual Revolution. You won't be able to download Super Mario Bros 3 and take it to Bills house to show him.
The legality of it has no place in argument because I'm not telling you its legal, I'm telling you it HAPPENS.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE: Exaggerations? Are you cakefilled?
Now, to the nitwits who claim I'm rushing out to buy a PS3 or that I claim it's better - please quote where I actually said that. Your "DATA" on that is incorrect.
Don't even try to think Nintendo is aiming for the 'non-gamer' demographic like thatone person who crapped thier pants at the Tennis game (which is a glorified demo, fyi).
This no-HD thing is going to bite them in the ass as well, but hey at least that one girl is gonna be happy playing tennis with 3 other bored people on her little 32 inch TV.
Yeesh, who took a leak in your Cheerios this morning? Oh yeah, Nintnedo... Little more consistently virulent than I'm used to at the 'rack.
Anyways, as to Wii. The last console I owned was a Sega Saturn of all things. Honstly, I've thought about getting a new console, and looking at the next gen consoles the contenders are the Wii and the Xbox 360. Why would I consider them? Well, their price tags, while I'd call neither budget, didn't make me go temporarily blind with sticker shock like the PS3 did. I'll choose a system based on entertainment, and while I was (and still am) skeptical about the Wiimote as a controller, if it does indeed work as billed and have the games to support it, if I buy a console it very well may be the Wii.
Bottom line: I (and at least a few others) will buy a console for something new and inovative. The Wii has promised this, and if it isn't a completely empty promise it'll do well. Besides, if I want graphics, game variety, or standard interface controls, I'll stick with my PC thank you very much.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE: $570 is still not a good price. Considering what you get, it's not the best bang for your buck.
I'm not saying it's too expensive, I'm saying it's NOT WORTH IT. How much I spend on my TV or whatever - that has ZERO to do with this discussion, The price point of the Revolution has everything to do with the fact that the Revolution - as it stands - is not worth the cash they are asking for it, especially because Nintendo claimed it was going to be a 'budget' system.
Yeah the system itself is budgeted well - but they rape you on the additional peripherals that are REQUIRED TO ENABLE MULTIPLAYER. The machine was NAMED the Wii because Nintendo touted multi as the selling point. "Wii play together, but not without our extra controllers that are really expensive."
And what do they do? Give us one controller and charge $60 for another? Are you telling me that if Microsoft or Sony broke their controllers in half, and charged $40 for the left half, and $20 for the right - you wouldn't be jumping down their throats? Bull.
Whoever mentioned that Metroid Prime 3 looked way better than their predecessors needs to gouge his or her eyes out. You obviously have no idea what the hell you're talking about. That screenshot is of the NextGeneration videogame, running on a NextGeneration videogame console - all the while looking like it's current generation relative.
That's not something to be proud of - it's something to be worried about.
HD is not someting that is 'gaining popularity'. Remember when "Available in Stereo" was 'gaining popularity'? Or Maybe when "Broadcast in color" was 'gaining popularity'? It isn't something of little importance, display and resolution is changing and more and more companies are adopting the HD standards over standard definition. Don't try to tell me it's of little importance when you're the one that isn't informed.
Nintendo claimed that "no one plays videogames online" so the Gamecube had little to no Online Capability. Well I guess that's a good thing for the Big N, I mean HELL.. Xbox Live was a complete bust for Microsoft, and Sony's online enabled games rarely have anyone playing them.
Online play is extremely popular not even counting the PC gamer, and it bit Nintendo in the ass.
Now Nintendo is saying that "no one plays games in HD" and that is complete and total BS. They removed the progressive scan port from their later run of Gamecubes because "no one used it". Had they supplied and ADVERTISED their ProgressiveScan component cables and not sold them or exorbitant prices - more people would have wised up and bought them.
This no-HD thing is going to bite them in the ass as well, but hey at least that one girl is gonna be happy playing tennis with 3 other bored people on her little 32 inch TV.
Other people have already pointed it out - you keep repeating that Nintendo is "raping" people on peripherals, when the only part you really need is the Remote ($40) as opposed to the 360's controller ($50). Or the fact that the 360 and PS3 require a hard drive to be worth purchasing - that's another $100 right there, whereas the Wii has enough internal flash memory for saves, and SD memory cards will cost $40 for 1 gig (as opposed to $40 for the 360's 512 meg memory card - but hey, that doesn't matter when you've already paid an extra $100 for the hard drive since Microsoft clearly isn't "raping" their consumers). Then there's the fact that the console itself is cheaper than both of the competitors, and Nintendo has a number of tried and proven compelling series; Microsoft has nothing outside of Halo (and that's not first party), and Sony has little in comparison. Oh, and hey - first party games, at the very least, are $10 cheaper. Combine that with the fact that third party developers are saying that it'll cost between a third and half the development cost of a 360 or PS3 game to make one for the Wii because so much of the programming has remained the same, and it's quite likely that most, if not all, second and third party games are going to be $50 as well. Between the games and the far cheaper price point (if you were to buy comparable packages for all three systems), I don't understand how you can rant about Nintendo "raping" the consumer and not say the same, moreso really, of Microsoft and Sony (especially Sony, with them forcing Blu-ray down your throat).
Nintendo has also suggested that they'll be offering packages with an additional remote packed in to the launch system for (I think) an additional $20, though I'll have to look for that information again. On top of that, Nintendo's packaging in a game for the first time since the Super Nintendo. Sure, it may not be much - but it's more than the competition.
I'm also not sure how you can possibly claim that Metroid Prime 3 doesn't look better than predecessors. Even at this stage in its development (as it's been pushed back to 2007), it still looks crisper, with more attention to finer details, than even Echoes did on the Gamecube. Given that it hasn't even been fully developed yet and it's a first generation game, that's quite impressive. If it's "something to be worried about," you're not playing games for the right reasons anyway - you've already shown you're far more concerned about the highest end graphics possible on HD anyway, never mind whether the game is any good.
Your comparison of HD to online gaming isn't even appropriate. Nintendo was wrong then; they're not now. Online gaming was big before 2001; HD penetration is still less than 10% of the market, and it's impossible to say how many of those people actually play video games. The technology for HD is still too expensive really to break the market; that obviously wasn't the case with online gaming. Xbox Live has done well, yeah, but Sony's online service has actually lost money, so even there, Nintendo was kind of right (though I still think wrong overall, as it alienated some third party developers). That "one girl" with the 32" television you're talking about is virtually all of the television market, and people who own televisions like that make up the vast majority of video gamers; HD is still a niche thing, again primarily due to the cost. You're comparing apples and oranges, and it just doesn't work.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: EDIT: And once again you ignore the fact that the Virtual Console games are:
A. Easier to get and play than setting back up your old NES/SNES, and blowing in the cartridges B. Hey, some people have different tastes, and it isn't Nintendo's fault if people pay $5 for Root Beer Tapper C. Completely legal
Once again you miss the point of why I mentioned the VC.
The virtual console is being aimed at these 'hardcore' gamers you mentioned, not the casual gamer. I doubt TennisGirl up there or any other gamer under the age of 20 has ever heard of The Guardian Legend or Terranigma. The reason for the VC - which will supposedly eventually include TG16 Genesis and other games from other companies - is for gamers who grew up on the stuff to purchase them and play them again.
The thing Nintendo hasn't counted on is the digital age - People that grew up on the games they are gouging most likely know how to run an emulator and download the ROM for it, negating your point of digging out the NES and SNES. There are a few ignorant people who don't know how to run ZSNES or FCEUltra, but not many.
The 2nd, and less advertised nature of the VC is for Nintendo/Sega/THC/Treasure/Square/Capcom/Midway and other companies to claim they are still 'making money' on these 20 year old games - therefore still enforcing their copyright on the games - protecting them from becoming abandonware.
No one but extreme fanboys, and idiots are going to pay $5 for Excitebike when a ROM is a download away. The prices are inane and way more than they should be for these older games, which will not even be portable. They will be hardcoded to each individual Revolution. You won't be able to download Super Mario Bros 3 and take it to Bills house to show him.
The legality of it has no place in argument because I'm not telling you its legal, I'm telling you it HAPPENS.
Your logic is flawed because there's no evidence to back up your point. Nintendo is doing because it's proven successful for Microsoft; with Nintendo's much larger, more popular back catalog of games, it stands to reason that they, too, will make money off this.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eldrad: Your logic is flawed because there's no evidence to back up your point. Nintendo is doing because it's proven successful for Microsoft; with Nintendo's much larger, more popular back catalog of games, it stands to reason that they, too, will make money off this.
Do you know why the LiveArcade has been successful? Because of online play or scoreboards. Hyper Street Fighter 2 is doing moderately well because it is a classic fighter that still has a following but it supports online matches which is a big thing because it's harder to find an arcade to play Street Fighter II than ever before..
I seriously doubt the Revolution is going to have Super Mario Bros Online.
It seems that you're uninformed logic is the one that's flawed. Move along.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Live Arcade has ALSO been successfu because they've been selling Pac-Man and Time Pilot for 5 bucks a pop. Even though everyone but the most ignorant can just run an emulator on it.
And if you don't think "Tennis Girl" hasn't heard of Mario, Zelda (even Donkey Kong or Sonic), then you severely underestimate the brand recognition of them.
But whatever, you just want to flame and rant against the Wii. Have fun.
posted
Now you are arguing that you never said the Wii was too expensive, now its all about how stupid the virtual console is. I am ignoring this thread for a bit, there does not seem to be a reason to post.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Now you are arguing that you never said the Wii was too expensive, now its all about how stupid the virtual console is. I am ignoring this thread for a bit, there does not seem to be a reason to post.
Like I said before: You're not reading.
I was going to quote myself, but you probably wouldn't read it anyway.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: $570 is still not a good price. Considering what you get, it's not the best bang for your buck.
That kind of statement is probably why people might assume you think the PS3 or XBox 360 is a better value. If it's not the best bang for your buck, what is? (From reading your posts I'd guess downloading ROMs illegally would be. Or a gamecube if you just want to play Smash Bros.)
It also amuses me how you accuse others of not reading when you continued to quote $60 per game after 4 people corrected you, including a link to the official price quote. But meanwhile, we all get that you don't feel the Wii is worth it for you to buy. I'm not sure why anyone cares, though.
posted
Peole try to say that the Revolution games are going to be $50. That's first party. What great first party games do we have?
Mario Zelda Metroid And to a lesser extent - Mario Party. Maybe even Kirby.
That's five franchises. Five games. Maybe I should have said:
OTHER games that are DIFFERENT from NINTENDO games will be $60. Usually I assume that the people that are trying to inform me that I am incorrect are capable of thinking outside the box.
Apparently I was incorrect in that assumption.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you telling me that if Microsoft or Sony broke their controllers in half, and charged $40 for the left half, and $20 for the right - you wouldn't be jumping down their throats? Bull.
Are you psychic? You're not even saying you doubt anyone would do this - you're flat out telling someone that they would.
Calm down. The act was tiresome last week.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: OTHER games that are DIFFERENT from NINTENDO games will be $60.
Link? Or a shred of evidence to support this?
Or how about where you said that Nintendo was the one charging more for the games, not the third party developers?
quote:Nintendo was claiming the system was to be a budget system.
But then:
They tack on $10 to each game title.
Many people have said 3rd party developers will charge what they want. I fully expect some of those games to be less than $50, some to be more than $50. It doesn't make your statements about what NINTENDO will charge for games any less wrong.
posted
In other news, is a Sunday release date normal for new consoles? I haven't really paid much attention to the exact launch dates of the last few. Is the idea so that stores can sell them midnight Saturday night?
It just seems odd to me to release something like this at the end of the weekend, rather than a Thursday or Friday so people could play with their new console all weekend.
posted
I don't know that anybody but PUNJABEE might care to look, but here's my original source for the 3rd parties = $50 comment. This was the first I heard it mentioned, later it seemed that EA echoed the price. So yeah.
"IGN Wii: As a final wrap-up, is the software price of $49.99 we were told a few months back still accurate, and will Marvel make it for day one of launch, or just the "launch window" timeframe? Also, is the price something that Nintendo is encouraging?
Karthik: We're still $49.99 for the Wii, yes. As far as day one of launch, do we actually have a day one date from Nintendo? "
EDIT: Nintendo launched the GameCube and the DS on a Sunday. I'm not sure about non-Nintendo launchs though.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You forgot the Smashbros franchise Punjabee, and DonkeyKong, I could sit and think of others but I'm not that interested.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the info, pfresh. I have a GC and a DS, but I got them both well after the respective launches. I was surprised when I checked my calendar and saw the 19th was a Sunday.
posted
I wasn't sure about the DS (but someone had told me that). I remember the GameCube launch though. I waited out all Saturday at Wal-Mart so that I was first in line to get one. I'm a nerd like that. Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why the heck is PUNJABEE being such a moron? I mean, he just keeps saying that the games are going to be 60 dollars. Everyone else keeps saying they are 50, and then he says that he heard that third party developers can charge whatever they want. So obviously they are going to charge more? When has that ever happened? It doesn't. Unless you are counting games like DDR and Guitar hero, where it comes with a special controller, so it has to be more expensive for them to make money.
And he adds up all the things you will buy for the Wii and says it is alot of money. You buy extra stuff for every system. Add up all the things from another system. In it's life you will probably buy like, 10 games. So, when you look back and see that you spent nearly a thousand dollars, yeah it is going to seem like alot of money. A gaming console costs alot.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just posted this to my blog. Hooray for spending money.
"So Nintendo announced the Wii's price. It's a little higher than expected but they are throwing in Wii Sports. The controller (or at least the complete version with Wiimote and nunchuck) is also a little higher than I desired. I guess it's to be expected though. This is the breakdown of my purchase come November 19th. Man, it's going to be a long wait until then.
Nintendo Wii with 1 Wiimote + nunchuck and Wii Sports: $249.99 2nd Wiimote: $39.99 2nd Nunchuck attachment: $19.99 Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess for Wii: $49.99 Marvel: Ultimate Alliance for Wii: $49.99 Tax: $33.82 Wal-Mart Giftcard: -$50
posted
This Penny Arade comic might resonate:http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/09/15
It is inoffensive, but be warned about checking out other Penny Arcade strips if you can be offended by sufficiently crude words.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eldrad: Your logic is flawed because there's no evidence to back up your point. Nintendo is doing because it's proven successful for Microsoft; with Nintendo's much larger, more popular back catalog of games, it stands to reason that they, too, will make money off this.
Do you know why the LiveArcade has been successful? Because of online play or scoreboards. Hyper Street Fighter 2 is doing moderately well because it is a classic fighter that still has a following but it supports online matches which is a big thing because it's harder to find an arcade to play Street Fighter II than ever before..
I seriously doubt the Revolution is going to have Super Mario Bros Online.
It seems that you're uninformed logic is the one that's flawed. Move along.
Did you even read my post above that, let alone have any reasoning behind how posting scores and such on LiveArcade makes it successful from a business standpoint? It doesn't. The games they sell on LiveArcade are the real moneymaker; sure, subscription fees are going to help, but a majority of that money has to go to supporting servers.
Also, quit being a dick. Hatrack isn't known for it, and it's getting old.
Posts: 143 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As someone who is interested in HD output I think having an HDTV is a great excuse to avoid the PS3 and XBox 360. Both are using full HD res as a market draw, blind to any actual advantage. I would much rather have seen 720p or 480p games that consistently sported more polygons/pixel and deeper textures than having to stretch the hardware and software to 1080i/p where it is weaker.
Four years or so from now the next generation of consoles will be in a much better position to utilize HD; not only that the development houses will be better at utilizing the extra resolution and the (necessary) multi-core CPUs.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't like the math that PUNJABEE used, so I decided to look into it m'self to see the costs. It's cheaper. Far cheaper.
Wii Package (Wii, remote, and sports) = $250 (Common knowledge) SSB:M = $30 ( link ) 3 Controllers for multiplayer = $12, $13, and $13( link and they will be compatable link) Nunchuck for controller = $20 (Common knowledge)
Total cost for Punjabee's set up = $338
That's like... Really quite cheap. So while I'm at it, why don't I get a second Wiimote to have more multiplayer on the wii games?
Total cost = $378
Huh, now why don't I get say... two launch titles. I like Rayman and Zelda... $100.
Total Cost = $478
Well then, to round it off I think I'll get some of my old favorites. Let's say 6 NES games at 5 bucks a pop, that's $30 more.
Total cost = $507 For the Wii, 2 Wiimotes, 1 Nunchuck, 2 Launch Titles, SSB:M, 3 GC controllers, Wii Sports, and 6 NES games.
I think that's well worth it.
But then again, the value of things is subjective. Personally, I like the ideas people are coming up with for the zany remote.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm a longtime Sony loyalist, and the PS3 will have my dollars unquestioningly when the system launches, but the Wii has my attention. Nintendo has always done interesting, innovative things with their systems, redefining or outright defying industry expectations, preferring to invent their own formulas for success rather than follow a cookie cutter pattern for what works.
I'm convinced that the Wii will be successful in the short term, but it could also tank hard in the medium to long run: it all depends on the accuracy of the controller, and how the uniqueness of the controller is utilized.
Wiith that iin miind, I'm going to be waiting until at least a month post-launch before considering purchasing one. Hopefully in that time I'll have an opportunity to play one, and the first flurry of reviews will be helpful.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a cool video from the Japanese press conference. It shows off a lot of different games (some of which of course won't come out in the US).
Oh, and on another related topic, what do you guys think of the Mii channel? It seems pretty neat to me.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Also, quit being a dick. Hatrack isn't known for it, and it's getting old.
lawlz
I didn't know being more informed than the common dipstick constitutes being 'a dick'.
Sorry, but I can't help knowing what the hell I'm talking about. Move along.
Punjabee, you're not kidding anyone here, either with your misrepresentation of facts or your condescending attitude. Papa Janitor already said to knock it off, and that 'dipstick' and 'move along' crap was exactly what I was talking about.
posted
The biggest problem for Sony with the pricing is Christmas I think. Well, maybe not the biggest, but the most apparent.
Since I was a kid, game consoles are something you ask your parents for, for Christmas. Your average parent can't afford a $600 system PLUS the cost of all the extras. Your average individual can't afford it, regardless of season.
Here's another question: Regardless of the new games that are coming out, is the PS3 really enough of a generational advancement in technology and visuals to justify its price? If not, then I'll snap up someone's used PS2 when this comes out, and I'll be happy for it. Blu-ray is still unproven, and you combine that with the fact that only SOME dvds will be released on Blu-ray and it doesn't seem worth the investment to me. To say nothing of the supply issues they seem to be having already.
Considering video games sales are what have been keeping Sony in the black for the last couple years, the PS3 could make or break more than just their video game line. They might not be able to survive a failed system, not enough to poor millions into a PS4.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the link pfresh. The Conducting game looks like a lot of fun, so does baseball, and all the sports really. Wii Cooking doesn't look like fun, who wants to buy a game that let's you do a chore virtually? They going to release a Wii Bathroom Cleaning expansion pack?
What is the Mii channel? Is that like the Sega Channel?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eldrad: [QB] Punjabee, you're not kidding anyone here, either with your misrepresentation of facts or your condescending attitude. Papa Janitor already said to knock it off, and that 'dipstick' and 'move along' crap was exactly what I was talking about.
lawls2.
Move along please.
Posts: 317 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You see, there's one thing you have to consider in all this discussion: you're talking about the cost of buying the console for yourselves.
If I'm buying a game console for myself, of course I'm conscious of how much it costs, and can control myself to the point of deciding what to buy, if anything at all. For that reason, the last console I've ever owned was the Atari 2600.
But if you have a young child that, without any hope of convincing otherwise, must have a Wii/XBox/PS3/Whatever the day it comes out or he'll never speak to you again, you might groan at the final price but you folks will pay it anyway. Granted, it might be the only Christmas gift he might get that year, but isn't it worth the price to see the satisfaction and joy on his face when he unwraps it?
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
