Well, according to Sony, there is a shortage of PS3's...so wtf are you talking about?
But, in reality, not la-la land, it's a good question -- why did the PS3 turn mega-flops, instead of mega-dough? Maybe it's the big, slap in the face price tag "$600". Don't pull that, "Oh, it's $500..." Just like Windows Basic, the cheaper version was crippled -- and not only was it crippled, it was even harder to find...because the only shipped a limited amount.
Well, according to Sony, there is a shortage of PS3's...so wtf are you talking about?
But, in reality, not la-la land, it's a good question -- why did the PS3 turn mega-flops, instead of mega-dough? Maybe it's the big, slap in the face price tag "$600". Don't pull that, "Oh, it's $500..." Just like Windows Basic, the cheaper version was crippled -- and not only was it crippled, it was even harder to find...because the only shipped a limited amount.
So yea. Thats why.
So w hats the price of them now? Nintendo has them beat by a long shot. The general pooblic is all bout the Wii - so Sony blew it, big time. Next time they will be thinking harder instead of having their heads up their azzes.
So w hats the price of them now? Nintendo has them beat by a long shot. The general pooblic is all bout the Wii - so Sony blew it, big time. Next time they will be thinking harder instead of having their heads up their azzes.
So what's the power behind the Wii? Sony has them beat by a long shot.
But seriously, if you saw a quart of milk for $1 and a gallon for $2, would you think, "Wow, that's one cheap quart?" No. You'd look at the unit price—the gallon is half the price per unit of milk.
Same with consoles. The XBOX 360 is about 10 times faster than the Wii. The PS3 is faster still. The Wii is incredibly overpriced for it's paltry visuals.
The Wii is selling just like the PS2 is selling, but in two years times, the Wii games shelf will be a graveyard.
But that quart of milk doesn't require you to shell out an additional ~$800 for a decent quality HDTV to get the full flavor of the gallon of milk...there's much more of an investment required for the 360 or the PS3 than just the base price of the systems.
Go into a game store and see which system has the greatest variety of games on the shelf of the last generation, PS2, GC or Xbox.
Which system also had the worst specs of the three?
But that quart of milk doesn't require you to shell out an additional ~$800 for a decent quality HDTV to get the full flavor of the gallon of milk...there's much more of an investment required for the 360 or the PS3 than just the base price of the systems.
So wait—the fact that the Wii's resolution is the same as the N64 is now a feature?
Great. I can't wait to get my Pong game that doesn't need color to get it's full, 1-bit flavor.
Quote:
Go into a game store and see which system has the greatest variety of games on the shelf of the last generation, PS2, GC or Xbox.
Which system also had the worst specs of the three?
I think you'll find it's the same system.
You're ignoring the Dreamcast. Why is that?
Also interesting: while the PS2 was only lacking flexibly programmable shaders versus the GameCube, and that on top of of a 30% speed disadvantage from the XBOX, the Dreamcast had about a tenth of the power of the XBOX.
The same showing by the Wii versus the XBOX 360.
Graphics don't count for everything, but the Wii barely beats out the original XBOX. That's disgraceful, and shows Nintendo's utter contempt for their customers.
It's dead, Jim. It also came out 1-3 years before the other consoles had their specs set.
I went to a few stores this weekend, and they all had PS3 in stock, but were taking waiting lists for the Wii. Too bad not everyone is a hardware whore, eh?
I went to a few stores this weekend, and they all had PS3 in stock, but were taking waiting lists for the Wii. Too bad not everyone is a hardware whore, eh?
The Dreamcast also managed to move quite a bit during its two year tenure—10 million or so.
For the record, I'm not a hardware whore. I still break out even my NES from time to time. It's just that I'm above spending $250 on a last-generation quality system. I'll play Zelda: Twilight Princess on the GameCube—it's not like there's going to be any other worthwhile Wii games.
Go into a game store and see which system has the greatest variety of games on the shelf of the last generation, PS2, GC or Xbox.
Which system also had the worst specs of the three?
I think you'll find it's the same system.
That's a good point but it seems that although people often say the lack of power in the Wii is what is the problem, I think it's the lack of decent games. I want to play grown up games like Gears of War and sadly, all the developers have flocked to the XBox360 and PS3. Some good titles are there on the Wii like Double Agent and Prince of Persia but still not enough.
I think it's because developers are lazy frankly. There are a huge number of ways to make graphics look good with a lower CPU hit. To me, Burnout on the XBox360 looks exactly the same as it did on the PS2. It's true that the faster machines will have a longer lifetime but why don't they just reduce the time between releasing a new console? The PS2 came out 7 years ago. If they brought out a less impressive hardware jump every 3 years, not only would we have lower priced hardware but they wouldn't lose so much on the consoles and so be forced to push it for years to come. As long as they made the games backwards compatible, it would be fine and if they can do that with PCs, they can surely do it with consoles.
I don't agree at all with what has happened with the Wii because they are just selling another Gamecube really and pretending it is next gen. That is really bad form but Sony have just gone a bit mad with their experimental CPUs. Microsoft have done the sensible thing of offering a really fast machine but at an affordable price and they don't hold back on the good games. I just won't buy a 360 though. I don't like the console design because they do what they do with everything - just throw options in a heap. It also overheats and is pretty noisy. Also, when you spec it up to what you get with a PS3, the PS3 starts to look much better value. I think I'll have the PS2 for another couple of years.
t's true that the faster machines will have a longer lifetime but why don't they just reduce the time between releasing a new console? The PS2 came out 7 years ago. If they brought out a less impressive hardware jump every 3 years, not only would we have lower priced hardware but they wouldn't lose so much on the consoles and so be forced to push it for years to come.
No, you'd pay the same amount and be three years behind in graphics.
Nintendo pretty much has to replace the Wii in about three years?right now it's maxed out and once developers get into full swing with the PS3 and the XBOX, the Wii will fall even further behind graphically.
So in the same 7 years that you had the XBOX and the PS3, you'd have to have 2 Wiis for?you guessed it?$500. No savings at all, but you have crappier hardware for 3 years.
No, you'd pay the same amount and be three years behind in graphics.
Nintendo pretty much has to replace the Wii in about three years—right now it's maxed out and once developers get into full swing with the PS3 and the XBOX, the Wii will fall even further behind graphically.
So in the same 7 years that you had the XBOX and the PS3, you'd have to have 2 Wiis for—you guessed it—$500. No savings at all, but you have crappier hardware for 3 years.
I think you're missing the point the nintendo could care less that it's graphically behind.
Their strategy is to ditch the "gamer" market and turn a bunch of people who aren't gamers (a much much larger market) into gamers with fun, social games. Will it work? I have no clue, but it's clearly their strategy. If it does work, the could sell an unbelievable number of consoles. The graphics capabilities for the audience they're targeting just isn't all that relevant.
I think you're missing the point the nintendo could care less that it's graphically behind.
Their strategy is to ditch the "gamer" market and turn a bunch of people who aren't gamers (a much much larger market) into gamers with fun, social games. Will it work? I have no clue, but it's clearly their strategy. If it does work, the could sell an unbelievable number of consoles. The graphics capabilities for the audience they're targeting just isn't all that relevant.
You're not following our conversation
Marvin said that there should be console releases more often with smaller jumps in abilities between each generation.
I pointed out that that's no easier on our wallets but costs us in terms of graphics.
Additionally, I'd also disagree with you. All the hardcore gamers I know love games like Katamari Damacy, are really excited about Spore, etc. All non-casual gamers come in and ask me why Grand Theft Auto's graphics "suck so much", or stutter in disbelief that Final Fantasy X is PS2 game, not a PSX game, since the graphics are so "terrible." Mainstream society—non-gamers—are more concerned about graphics than any gamer I know.
I just don't get why some of you refuse to accept the reasons people are giving as to why they like the Wii better. People are trying to tell you that it is too expensive for them to consider purchasing just to play games on. That is a valid reason to choose a Wii over a PS3, and the market bears witness to that fact. Also people really like the new control scheme. My 60 year old mother will play Wii tennis, and loves it. She has never played any game console prior to that, and had no desire to. The Wii control scheme is innovative and fun, and again the market is bearing witness to this. Most people I know don't yet own HDTVs, and it seems a waste to buy the very expensive console, which has a strong emphasis on graphics, only to use a SD display. Why should I spend out for first rate graphics ability and then gimp it with my 24" SD TV?
This idea that the games shelf for Wii is going to be empty in a few years time is just ridiculous. I really bet all those companies are going to stop producing games for a console that has an install base over 3 times the PS3. If sales don't pick up for the PS3 I would wager the opposite would happen. A game developer is not going to lay out the cash to create a gorgeous AAA title if the number of consoles isn't large enough to recoup their costs.
Quote:
For the record, I'm not a hardware whore. I still break out even my NES from time to time. It's just that I'm above spending $250 on a last-generation quality system. I'll play Zelda: Twilight Princess on the GameCube?it's not like there's going to be any other worthwhile Wii games.
Right because Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid, and a Mario Kart game are all not worthwhile. Not to mention other 3rd games like FF Crystal Chronicles and Pikmin. Does Sony pay you to say this stuff?
Additionally, I'd also disagree with you. All the hardcore gamers I know love games like Katamari Damacy, are really excited about Spore, etc. All non-casual gamers come in and ask me why Grand Theft Auto's graphics "suck so much", or stutter in disbelief that Final Fantasy X is PS2 game, not a PSX game, since the graphics are so "terrible." Mainstream society?non-gamers?are more concerned about graphics than any gamer I know.
Then how are you also arguing at the same time that the Wii will have to be replaced very soon because the graphics will be so awful and behind?
You're kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
And perhaps it's not that "mainstream society non-gamers" are concerned about graphics, but that they believe hardcore gamers are, so that's what they ask about?
Then how are you also arguing at the same time that the Wii will have to be replaced very soon because the graphics will be so awful and behind?
You're kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
Because non-hardcore-gamers buy the majority of video games and consoles? Hard-core gamers aren't really anyone's target market anymore.
Additionally, most games come out for multiple consoles. If you have two consoles, you buy the game for the console with the best graphics. After all, the gameplay is the same. Last generation, I bought XBOX games even though I had all three consoles. This generation it looks like it will be PS3 games.
Since the majority of console makers profits comes from the sale of games, having the worst graphics means that the only games that will be bought for your system are either exclusives or games bought by people with one system.
Also, keep in mind that the Wii isn't just a little bit behind. It has about a tenth of the power of the XBOX 360 and the PS3. A lot of current Wii owners will also be getting an XBOX or a PS3 once the prices come down, and guess which ones they'll buy games for.
Quote:
And perhaps it's not that "mainstream society non-gamers" are concerned about graphics, but that they believe hardcore gamers are, so that's what they ask about?
Then why would they use such colorful language, rather than ask, "does it bother you that the graphics aren't so good?"
I just don't get why some of you refuse to accept the reasons people are giving as to why they like the Wii better. People are trying to tell you that it is too expensive for them to consider purchasing just to play games on. That is a valid reason to choose a Wii over a PS3, and the market bears witness to that fact.
The market also bears witness to the PS2 selling three times what the Wii is selling. What's your point?
Quote:
Also people really like the new control scheme. My 60 year old mother will play Wii tennis, and loves it. She has never played any game console prior to that, and had no desire to. The Wii control scheme is innovative and fun, and again the market is bearing witness to this.
I've never said the Wii wasn't fun, nor said anything negative about the control scheme. I just said it was way too expensive for me, in terms of bang for buck.
Quote:
Most people I know don't yet own HDTVs, and it seems a waste to buy the very expensive console, which has a strong emphasis on graphics, only to use a SD display. Why should I spend out for first rate graphics ability and then gimp it with my 24" SD TV?
Are the Wii's graphics photoreleastic? No.
Things like more polygons; sharper, more varied textures; and HDR lighting improve graphics on all TVs, HD or no. People with SD TVs will still greatly benefit from the XBOX 360 and the PS3. The fact that they go that high is just icing on the cake.
Quote:
This idea that the games shelf for Wii is going to be empty in a few years time is just ridiculous. I really bet all those companies are going to stop producing games for a console that has an install base over 3 times the PS3. If sales don't pick up for the PS3 I would wager the opposite would happen. A game developer is not going to lay out the cash to create a gorgeous AAA title if the number of consoles isn't large enough to recoup their costs.
In the US, the Wii only has about 1.8x the install base as the PS3. You're including European sales?where the PS3 hasn't yet been released (but is sold out of pre-orders). Even then, though, you're wrong?it has about a 2.8x lead in install base.
Then there's a few other things to consider. One is that a developer isn't going to lay out the cash to create a gorgeous AAA title for a console that can't handle it. That's wasted money. Note that the Unreal Engine isn't coming out for the Wii. Games that use this engine can't be ported. Other AAA games like Grand Theft Auto won't be ported, either.
Also, note that Nintendo traditionally has terrible developer relations. Developers flocking in droves to the original Playstation, despite far crappier hardware, wasn't a coincidence. They hated Nintendo with a passion.
Sony and particularly Microsoft also understand the power of netting a few key exclusives, like Halo, Blue Dragon, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc. Nintendo doesn't have the third party outreach. For the past decade, almost all good Nintendo games have been made in-house.
Quote:
Right because Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid, and a Mario Kart game are all not worthwhile. Not to mention other 3rd games like FF Crystal Chronicles and Pikmin. Does Sony pay you to say this stuff?
Note again how all of these, other than FF Crystal Chronicles, are made in-house. Also, Mario Kart and Pikmin haven't been announced.
Also, I think we're using different definitions for "hardcore gamer" My definition is much more liberal than yours I think. For my purposes, I'm defining "hardcore gamer" as anyone who in this previous generation of consoles bought 4 or 5 games a year or more.
I think Nintendo is really looking outside that market, to people who haven't ever played console video games, or just sparsely (a couple games a year).
Will this be a successful strategy? Again, I have no idea.
Comments
"home" video:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/gdc07...ome-242341.php
"littlebigplanet" video:
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/07/so...ttlebigplanet/
But, in reality, not la-la land, it's a good question -- why did the PS3 turn mega-flops, instead of mega-dough? Maybe it's the big, slap in the face price tag "$600". Don't pull that, "Oh, it's $500..." Just like Windows Basic, the cheaper version was crippled -- and not only was it crippled, it was even harder to find...because the only shipped a limited amount.
So yea. Thats why.
Well, according to Sony, there is a shortage of PS3's...so wtf are you talking about?
But, in reality, not la-la land, it's a good question -- why did the PS3 turn mega-flops, instead of mega-dough? Maybe it's the big, slap in the face price tag "$600". Don't pull that, "Oh, it's $500..." Just like Windows Basic, the cheaper version was crippled -- and not only was it crippled, it was even harder to find...because the only shipped a limited amount.
So yea. Thats why.
So w hats the price of them now? Nintendo has them beat by a long shot. The general pooblic is all bout the Wii - so Sony blew it, big time. Next time they will be thinking harder instead of having their heads up their azzes.
So w hats the price of them now? Nintendo has them beat by a long shot. The general pooblic is all bout the Wii - so Sony blew it, big time. Next time they will be thinking harder instead of having their heads up their azzes.
So what's the power behind the Wii? Sony has them beat by a long shot.
But seriously, if you saw a quart of milk for $1 and a gallon for $2, would you think, "Wow, that's one cheap quart?" No. You'd look at the unit price—the gallon is half the price per unit of milk.
Same with consoles. The XBOX 360 is about 10 times faster than the Wii. The PS3 is faster still. The Wii is incredibly overpriced for it's paltry visuals.
The Wii is selling just like the PS2 is selling, but in two years times, the Wii games shelf will be a graveyard.
Go into a game store and see which system has the greatest variety of games on the shelf of the last generation, PS2, GC or Xbox.
Which system also had the worst specs of the three?
I think you'll find it's the same system.
But that quart of milk doesn't require you to shell out an additional ~$800 for a decent quality HDTV to get the full flavor of the gallon of milk...there's much more of an investment required for the 360 or the PS3 than just the base price of the systems.
So wait—the fact that the Wii's resolution is the same as the N64 is now a feature?
Great. I can't wait to get my Pong game that doesn't need color to get it's full, 1-bit flavor.
Go into a game store and see which system has the greatest variety of games on the shelf of the last generation, PS2, GC or Xbox.
Which system also had the worst specs of the three?
I think you'll find it's the same system.
You're ignoring the Dreamcast. Why is that?
Also interesting: while the PS2 was only lacking flexibly programmable shaders versus the GameCube, and that on top of of a 30% speed disadvantage from the XBOX, the Dreamcast had about a tenth of the power of the XBOX.
The same showing by the Wii versus the XBOX 360.
Graphics don't count for everything, but the Wii barely beats out the original XBOX. That's disgraceful, and shows Nintendo's utter contempt for their customers.
S
You're ignoring the Dreamcast. Why is that?
It's dead, Jim. It also came out 1-3 years before the other consoles had their specs set.
I went to a few stores this weekend, and they all had PS3 in stock, but were taking waiting lists for the Wii. Too bad not everyone is a hardware whore, eh?
It's dead, Jim.
Bingo!
I went to a few stores this weekend, and they all had PS3 in stock, but were taking waiting lists for the Wii. Too bad not everyone is a hardware whore, eh?
The Dreamcast also managed to move quite a bit during its two year tenure—10 million or so.
For the record, I'm not a hardware whore. I still break out even my NES from time to time. It's just that I'm above spending $250 on a last-generation quality system. I'll play Zelda: Twilight Princess on the GameCube—it's not like there's going to be any other worthwhile Wii games.
The Wii is selling just like the PS2 is selling, but in two years times, the Wii games shelf will be a graveyard.
Amen, brother! The Wii is nothing but a fad; I don't see it have any longevity.
Amen, brother! The Wii is nothing but a fad; I don't see it have any longevity.
Unless it becomes a weight loss, physical conditioning fad.
Go into a game store and see which system has the greatest variety of games on the shelf of the last generation, PS2, GC or Xbox.
Which system also had the worst specs of the three?
I think you'll find it's the same system.
That's a good point but it seems that although people often say the lack of power in the Wii is what is the problem, I think it's the lack of decent games. I want to play grown up games like Gears of War and sadly, all the developers have flocked to the XBox360 and PS3. Some good titles are there on the Wii like Double Agent and Prince of Persia but still not enough.
I think it's because developers are lazy frankly. There are a huge number of ways to make graphics look good with a lower CPU hit. To me, Burnout on the XBox360 looks exactly the same as it did on the PS2. It's true that the faster machines will have a longer lifetime but why don't they just reduce the time between releasing a new console? The PS2 came out 7 years ago. If they brought out a less impressive hardware jump every 3 years, not only would we have lower priced hardware but they wouldn't lose so much on the consoles and so be forced to push it for years to come. As long as they made the games backwards compatible, it would be fine and if they can do that with PCs, they can surely do it with consoles.
I don't agree at all with what has happened with the Wii because they are just selling another Gamecube really and pretending it is next gen. That is really bad form but Sony have just gone a bit mad with their experimental CPUs. Microsoft have done the sensible thing of offering a really fast machine but at an affordable price and they don't hold back on the good games. I just won't buy a 360 though. I don't like the console design because they do what they do with everything - just throw options in a heap. It also overheats and is pretty noisy. Also, when you spec it up to what you get with a PS3, the PS3 starts to look much better value. I think I'll have the PS2 for another couple of years.
t's true that the faster machines will have a longer lifetime but why don't they just reduce the time between releasing a new console? The PS2 came out 7 years ago. If they brought out a less impressive hardware jump every 3 years, not only would we have lower priced hardware but they wouldn't lose so much on the consoles and so be forced to push it for years to come.
No, you'd pay the same amount and be three years behind in graphics.
Nintendo pretty much has to replace the Wii in about three years?right now it's maxed out and once developers get into full swing with the PS3 and the XBOX, the Wii will fall even further behind graphically.
So in the same 7 years that you had the XBOX and the PS3, you'd have to have 2 Wiis for?you guessed it?$500. No savings at all, but you have crappier hardware for 3 years.
No, you'd pay the same amount and be three years behind in graphics.
Nintendo pretty much has to replace the Wii in about three years—right now it's maxed out and once developers get into full swing with the PS3 and the XBOX, the Wii will fall even further behind graphically.
So in the same 7 years that you had the XBOX and the PS3, you'd have to have 2 Wiis for—you guessed it—$500. No savings at all, but you have crappier hardware for 3 years.
I think you're missing the point the nintendo could care less that it's graphically behind.
Their strategy is to ditch the "gamer" market and turn a bunch of people who aren't gamers (a much much larger market) into gamers with fun, social games. Will it work? I have no clue, but it's clearly their strategy. If it does work, the could sell an unbelievable number of consoles. The graphics capabilities for the audience they're targeting just isn't all that relevant.
I think you're missing the point the nintendo could care less that it's graphically behind.
Their strategy is to ditch the "gamer" market and turn a bunch of people who aren't gamers (a much much larger market) into gamers with fun, social games. Will it work? I have no clue, but it's clearly their strategy. If it does work, the could sell an unbelievable number of consoles. The graphics capabilities for the audience they're targeting just isn't all that relevant.
You're not following our conversation
Marvin said that there should be console releases more often with smaller jumps in abilities between each generation.
I pointed out that that's no easier on our wallets but costs us in terms of graphics.
Additionally, I'd also disagree with you. All the hardcore gamers I know love games like Katamari Damacy, are really excited about Spore, etc. All non-casual gamers come in and ask me why Grand Theft Auto's graphics "suck so much", or stutter in disbelief that Final Fantasy X is PS2 game, not a PSX game, since the graphics are so "terrible." Mainstream society—non-gamers—are more concerned about graphics than any gamer I know.
This idea that the games shelf for Wii is going to be empty in a few years time is just ridiculous. I really bet all those companies are going to stop producing games for a console that has an install base over 3 times the PS3.
For the record, I'm not a hardware whore. I still break out even my NES from time to time. It's just that I'm above spending $250 on a last-generation quality system. I'll play Zelda: Twilight Princess on the GameCube?it's not like there's going to be any other worthwhile Wii games.
Right because Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid, and a Mario Kart game are all not worthwhile.
Additionally, I'd also disagree with you. All the hardcore gamers I know love games like Katamari Damacy, are really excited about Spore, etc. All non-casual gamers come in and ask me why Grand Theft Auto's graphics "suck so much", or stutter in disbelief that Final Fantasy X is PS2 game, not a PSX game, since the graphics are so "terrible." Mainstream society?non-gamers?are more concerned about graphics than any gamer I know.
Then how are you also arguing at the same time that the Wii will have to be replaced very soon because the graphics will be so awful and behind?
You're kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
And perhaps it's not that "mainstream society non-gamers" are concerned about graphics, but that they believe hardcore gamers are, so that's what they ask about?
Then how are you also arguing at the same time that the Wii will have to be replaced very soon because the graphics will be so awful and behind?
You're kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth here.
Because non-hardcore-gamers buy the majority of video games and consoles? Hard-core gamers aren't really anyone's target market anymore.
Additionally, most games come out for multiple consoles. If you have two consoles, you buy the game for the console with the best graphics. After all, the gameplay is the same. Last generation, I bought XBOX games even though I had all three consoles. This generation it looks like it will be PS3 games.
Since the majority of console makers profits comes from the sale of games, having the worst graphics means that the only games that will be bought for your system are either exclusives or games bought by people with one system.
Also, keep in mind that the Wii isn't just a little bit behind. It has about a tenth of the power of the XBOX 360 and the PS3. A lot of current Wii owners will also be getting an XBOX or a PS3 once the prices come down, and guess which ones they'll buy games for.
And perhaps it's not that "mainstream society non-gamers" are concerned about graphics, but that they believe hardcore gamers are, so that's what they ask about?
Then why would they use such colorful language, rather than ask, "does it bother you that the graphics aren't so good?"
Have you seriously never had this happen to you?
I just don't get why some of you refuse to accept the reasons people are giving as to why they like the Wii better. People are trying to tell you that it is too expensive for them to consider purchasing just to play games on. That is a valid reason to choose a Wii over a PS3, and the market bears witness to that fact.
The market also bears witness to the PS2 selling three times what the Wii is selling. What's your point?
Also people really like the new control scheme. My 60 year old mother will play Wii tennis, and loves it. She has never played any game console prior to that, and had no desire to. The Wii control scheme is innovative and fun, and again the market is bearing witness to this.
I've never said the Wii wasn't fun, nor said anything negative about the control scheme. I just said it was way too expensive for me, in terms of bang for buck.
Most people I know don't yet own HDTVs, and it seems a waste to buy the very expensive console, which has a strong emphasis on graphics, only to use a SD display. Why should I spend out for first rate graphics ability and then gimp it with my 24" SD TV?
Are the Wii's graphics photoreleastic? No.
Things like more polygons; sharper, more varied textures; and HDR lighting improve graphics on all TVs, HD or no. People with SD TVs will still greatly benefit from the XBOX 360 and the PS3. The fact that they go that high is just icing on the cake.
This idea that the games shelf for Wii is going to be empty in a few years time is just ridiculous. I really bet all those companies are going to stop producing games for a console that has an install base over 3 times the PS3.
In the US, the Wii only has about 1.8x the install base as the PS3. You're including European sales?where the PS3 hasn't yet been released (but is sold out of pre-orders). Even then, though, you're wrong?it has about a 2.8x lead in install base.
Then there's a few other things to consider. One is that a developer isn't going to lay out the cash to create a gorgeous AAA title for a console that can't handle it. That's wasted money. Note that the Unreal Engine isn't coming out for the Wii. Games that use this engine can't be ported. Other AAA games like Grand Theft Auto won't be ported, either.
Also, note that Nintendo traditionally has terrible developer relations. Developers flocking in droves to the original Playstation, despite far crappier hardware, wasn't a coincidence. They hated Nintendo with a passion.
Sony and particularly Microsoft also understand the power of netting a few key exclusives, like Halo, Blue Dragon, Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, etc. Nintendo doesn't have the third party outreach. For the past decade, almost all good Nintendo games have been made in-house.
Right because Super Mario Galaxy, Metroid, and a Mario Kart game are all not worthwhile.
Note again how all of these, other than FF Crystal Chronicles, are made in-house. Also, Mario Kart and Pikmin haven't been announced.
Have you seriously never had this happen to you?
No, No I haven't.
Also, I think we're using different definitions for "hardcore gamer" My definition is much more liberal than yours I think. For my purposes, I'm defining "hardcore gamer" as anyone who in this previous generation of consoles bought 4 or 5 games a year or more.
I think Nintendo is really looking outside that market, to people who haven't ever played console video games, or just sparsely (a couple games a year).
Will this be a successful strategy? Again, I have no idea.