Nintendo wants to charge you $250 for the Xbox 0.8

[BlueTsunami]

Wanna know how distinguished mentally-challenged it is to say the Wii will bomb? Look at the profit. How the fuck does a machine bomb when every game or machine you sell makes money? Nintendo could sell like 1 million of them total, and make money, thats what you don't get. You wanna play armchair videogame industry some more smart guy?

So Nintendo is going to make one Wii console for every person thats going to buy a wii and not overship? Thats some magic forecasting analysts Nintendo has go tharrrrr.

[Phoenix Dark]

Wanna know how distinguished mentally-challenged it is to say the Wii will bomb? Look at the profit. How the fuck does a machine bomb when every game or machine you sell makes money? Nintendo could sell like 1 million of them total, and make money, thats what you don't get. You wanna play armchair videogame industry some more smart guy?

It's more relevant to compare the Wii to the DS than the GC because the Wii has an unorthodox strategy, just like the DS. The GC was more like the PS2 or XBox with less games, which is why it sold less. There was absolutely nothing unique or different about it other than it looked like a Cube.

So it's perfectly fine to compare the Gamecube to the GBA too right?  :stfu

You lose

[Hollywood]

Gamecube isn't a Game Boy. DS isn't a Game Boy. Wii isn't a Game Boy. Comparing anything to the most known brand of handheld gaming in history is ridiculous. I didn't say the DS being successful means the Wii will be, but your argument that its an overclocked Gamecube doesn't hold water either. The power argument is stupid, it has no relevance. There are similarities between the bashing the DS got and what the Wii is getting. Who cares about the touch screen or two screens, who cares about motion control? The graphics are much much poorer than the PSP, the graphics are much much poorer than the PS3/360.

If you want to come up with an argument why the Wii will fail at least use one that holds water. Saying something is a stupid gimmick because YOU don't like it, and saying the graphics suck and it won't sell because YOU like HD and powerful looking graphics doesn't mean thats the rule for everyone. The DS is used as an example of people saying the exact same thing, and regardless if its a handheld or not, those reasons prove to be invalid. And they prove to be invalid when a 6 year old PS2 machine is beating the 360's ass in sales, and the Game Boy Advance 5 years old with absolutely zero releases is beating the PSP in the US.

As for the one million comment, it was an exaggeration, but you know what I mean. Wii will sell more than 1 million easily within the first week of launch, no doubt, and likely a lot more. Those 4 million world wide will definately be gone, whether you want to admit it or not. That right there is all the success they need. It's not going to bomb no matter how much you want it to.

[Phoenix Dark]

Since when have graphics EVER mattered in the handheld market? The console market is different, and it's not hard to understand. Consider the last few generations since the NES. All of them included consoles that ALL competed with with each other graphically.

SNES
Genesis

N64
PS1
Saturn

lol dreamcast

Xbox
Gamecube
PS2

The Wii is going to break this trend by being vastly inferior to its COMPETITORS (yes, they are all competing for the same thing, and they're all in the same market). We'll see how that plays out

[Eel O'Brian]

Relax.  I'm not attacking you or wishing failure on Nintendo.  I just don't want to get milked for overpriced launch packages with software I don't want, and which requires additional $60 controllers I have to buy in two pieces to enjoy.

[Hollywood]

I posted earlier in the thread about how I think all three companies are practically highballing everyone. I'm not starting 'OMG console warz!!!' stuff anymore. That's so 2001. Needless to say, I think you are a damn fool if you think any one of the three companies will 'bomb'. Nintendo probably won't sell as much as 360 or PS3 in the US for sure, but they don't have to. Break even points for Nintendo have to be quite a bit lower than MSoft or Sony. Hell Sony or Microsoft may not even break even in the long run, it will take Microsoft years and years to even break even from getting into the console market, and the Cell and Blu Ray is a dangerous proporsition for Sony.

You can spend 600, 400, or 250 for a console and honestly I don't see games out right now or even this fall that I want, that a current/last gen console can't provide. Zelda is on Gamecube, PS2 still has some hot games coming like Guitar Hero 2, which is one of the few new types of games out there ... there's FF XII, among others. So whatever, right now I don't think any are worth it.

[BlueTsunami]

Hollywood, I regards to the PS3 and Wii, I think your asking way to much from two consoles that haven't even launched yet.

As far as the PSe, If anything the launch is looking MUCH more appealing than the PS2 launch. There seems more of a diverse set of games. If you end up waiting then theres DMC4 and Metal Gear Solid 4 that may be coming out next year. The year after that? Possibly Final Fantasy XIII (and maybe a remake of FFVII).

[etiolate]

I'm about to slap the next person talking about "hardcore gamer".  MS keeps touting they have them, but their library is narrow and redundant. Action game, action game, fps, fps! So a hardcore gamer only plays the same game over and over? They don't play new things? Where the fuck did this hardcore gamer idea come from? In the past, the 'hardcore gamer' was always ready and willing to try wacky new things(especially if it was 'wacky jappy'). They imported strange games, or raved about small devs with new ideas. The current definition of the word sounds more like the rut of redundancy the PC scene has been stuck in forever.

For example, those of us who have been gaming for more than a couple gens might remember Caveman Games on the NES. An odd, but lovable game that was a lot of fun.  Nobody was discounting the game back then because of its setup or trial of events.  But now we have Rayman Raving Rabbids, which is basically a modern Caveman Games with Rayman, and it's just a lame minigame non-game?

People get caught up in silly videogame political-like phrases and talking points. I am never sure how much is people just entertaining themselves and how much is people actually thinking these things. I know that the spouters of it get others to think it and it somehow becomes fact.

Honestly, I get frustrated by being the only person who seems to have a clue. I don't talk to others about videogames in real life, even though they know I play them a lot, because I know they've been inundated with the hyperbole already. I just won't talk about games. I'll sit there and play them, but god damned if I am talking to anyone about games in real life after having read such an exasperating chorus of chicken clucking online.

hrm

end rant

[brawndolicious]

I'm about to slap the next person talking about "hardcore gamer".  MS keeps touting they have them, but their library is narrow and redundant. Action game, action game, fps, fps! So a hardcore gamer only plays the same game over and over? They don't play new things? Where the fuck did this hardcore gamer idea come from? In the past, the 'hardcore gamer' was always ready and willing to try wacky new things(especially if it was 'wacky jappy'). They imported strange games, or raved about small devs with new ideas. The current definition of the word sounds more like the rut of redundancy the PC scene has been stuck in forever.
For example, those of us who have been gaming for more than a couple gens might remember Caveman Games on the NES. An odd, but lovable game that was a lot of fun.  Nobody was discounting the game back then because of its setup or trial of events.  But now we have Rayman Raving Rabbids, which is basically a modern Caveman Games with Rayman, and it's just a lame minigame non-game?
People get caught up in silly videogame political-like phrases and talking points. I am never sure how much is people just entertaining themselves and how much is people actually thinking these things. I know that the spouters of it get others to think it and it somehow becomes fact.
Honestly, I get frustrated by being the only person who seems to have a clue. I don't talk to others about videogames in real life, even though they know I play them a lot, because I know they've been inundated with the hyperbole already. I just won't talk about games. I'll sit there and play them, but god damned if I am talking to anyone about games in real life after having read such an exasperating chorus of chicken clucking online.
hrm
end rant

it's just dumbasses getting caught up in the sensation.  The only time new good games can sell a lot is if they're at launch (Halo, Mario 64, etc.) because they force buyers to choose from only a few games and everybody plays it.  I think that's what Nintendo is doing with they're fairly mediocre-looking launch line-up of many very different then there past versions games.

[Hollywood]

I think the launch lineup looks better than most, even if its game you don't want to play. It's close to identical to some other past launches.

Zelda is obviously THE game, even if it comes out on GC a month later or so. Excitetruck is to Waverace of past launches when a racing alternative is needed, looks very similar. Wii Sports is a tech demo, which is better than nothing.

Rayman and Super Monkey Ball look like the perfect kind of party games to use the Wii controller, sleeper games that most will scoff at and say aren't worth it but most who buy will love.

Red Steel is a wildcard that could go either way. Then you have your standard EA Sports connection and Tony Hawk fix, and a few other dark horses like Trauma Center and Splinter Cell. IMO this launch is MUCH stronger than the Gamecube launch for sure.

People saying this is the GC redux, to put it simply, GC got a Tony Hawk 3 port, and now they get a new version. GC didn't get ANY Ubi Soft games at launch I recall, now they got a boatload of support. EA Sports is putting much more effort into their sports games than Gamecube got, even if you think the controlelr is stupid, they are putting together a better effort.

I don't see what could get worse, third parties are putting in more effort and time than before, something GC got shafted on.

[Fatghost28]

First of all, none of us are saying Wii is a bad business decision, just that it's a piece of shit product that is over priced and aimed at a market that none of us, who used to buy Nintendo products, still fit into. 

Wii will probably make a lot of money for Nintendo, but since I'm not Nintendo, I don't give a shit about their profitability.  It's 1999 tech being sold for an outlandish price with a shitty software line up with one bright spot being two Gamecube port overs.  It's going to have worse third party support than GC and even less varied library. 

Nintendo is abandoning the traditional game market to pursue the brain training group like Drinky said.  Whether or not this will be successful, I don't know.  DS did not abandon the traditional games market, in embraced it, and I think this universality is key to mainstream success.  The PS2 embraced universality and the GBA embraced it, and both machines dominated their market.  The DS also embraces it and it's doing incredibly well.  The Wii eschews it.

I think Nintendo is overestimating the power of a brain training to sell consoles though.  The DS is impulse buy priced, it's portable, it's self contained, and it's easily shown to friends and co-workers.   It's cute and girls like that, and it's easy to operate and I suspect many people throw it in a drawer after a few sessions and forget about it for months.  A console is a different animal altogether.  It's more cumbersome, it's a bigger investment, it takes up TV real estate, it's not at all self contained, it's no longer easily shown to friends and co-workers, and the type of 10-20 minute game play sessions that suit the DS won't suit a console game session at all.  Let alone all the set up and configuration that the Wii will require to make the wagglewand work.  I don't think a non gamer would want to put up with the required set up, room dimensions and lighting conditions that are necessary to get the waggle wand to be accurate.  It's not as easy as turning on a DS and tapping the touch screen.  The Wii will not be as intuitive as most of you think.

I suppose the better term to use instead of "hardcore" gamer is "traditional" gamer.  I don't want to be stuck with SD resolutions in order to beef up Nintendo's bottom line.  I don't want to be forced to deal with an entirely new input method for all genres when it would only help a few.  There is nothing wrong with the traditional control pad for Ninja Gaiden, for example.  Waggle would not improve that game - having to swing my sword would be cumbersome, tiresome, and not at all precise enough to work for that game. 

[brawndolicious]

I think the reason Wii is seen by Nintendo as a secondary console or a casual's console is that it's more about changing the types of multiplayer games available.  Add this to great Nintendo first-party games and you don't have a bad system.  One that's very hard to emulate without the exact same controller but still a good system.

[Fatghost28]

Wii does not have Japan locked up.  I suspect the overwhelming majority of the Japanese market is now going to just stick to PS2 and wait for PS3 to get cheap/Wii to become a real next gen system.

One of these two things is more likely to happen than the other though.