The New Console Debates

[SmashBros.Guy]

ya I don't think that Sony would innovate. Just look they've stolen a lot of things. The anologe stick being one of the many. I'm not saying Sony's a bad company but they have got to stop stealing.

Nitendo is my choice because look at the controller. It's supposed to be freaking sweet. Nintendo is getting a lot of 3rd party support and Revolution Day is coming. So is E3!

 

[Chill]

ya I don't think that Sony would innovate. Just look they've stolen a lot of things. The anologe stick being one of the many. I'm not saying Sony's a bad company but they have got to stop stealing.

The analog stick was invented by Atari. If you call that stealing that would mean Nintendo stole it from them.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

One of the major things in favor of the Revolution is, as I've heard, the developers love it. Not only do they get to tinker with this innovative controller, perfect for any first or third-person trailing camera view, it is also supposed to be the easiest to program games for since both the PS3 and X-Box 360 both have new and strange hardware - especially the PS3 (those multi-core processors are challenging). In the end, I think they're all pretty even, but I'm going with a Nintendo for several factors: 1) I'm a fanboy (despite being disappointed by the 'Cube), 2) I like the new controller, and 3) Easy and popular game developement. It's not as powerful as either of the others, but it has it's own things working for it - and from those Red Steel screenshots, the graphics are by no means inadequate.

 

[commonyoshi]

Anyone think the Rev will out sell both the 360 and PS3? Because of its low price, and also because Nintendo is aiming for it to be a "secondary system." Meaning that someone will buy a 360 and a Rev, or a PS3 and a Rev. I for one hope that it will completely destroy the competition leaving Sony and MS in the dust.

 

[Crimson King]

You are missing a huge point in your whole argument, common mathematics.

If the 360 is selling for $400 and the Rev sells for $250, even if the Rev sells 10 million (about $2.5 Billion) and if the 360 sells 5 million (about $2 Billion), it shows that the Rev has to sell ALOT more than the 360 AND the PS3 to have enough of a profit margin.

Also, the GCN was less than both the XBox and Ps2, more established than the XBox, and sold much less than both. So that's a poor argument. Not everyone will WANT to buy more than one console at a time, until a substancial price drop.

 

[Zink]

Except Nintendo is taking a much smaller loss for manufacturing costs than the others. They will have a higher profit per console.

 

[beckhamisaqueer]

^ Elaborating on that point.


(These are estimates.)

Xbox 360= 400 per console to manufacture; sold at 300-400

$-100-0 profit per console sold.

PS3 (extreme guesswork here) 600 to manufacture; roughly sold at 500

$-100 profit per console sold.

Revolution= 200 to manufacture; roughly sold at 200

Even.

Though those numbers may be off, they get the point across. Revos will not need to sell as much to make profit.(through consoles, not games.) Look at GC, least sold, most profit.

 

[Chill]

The gamecube did not make the most profit.

Nevermind I see what you're saying. But I will need to correct that statement. The GC initially made the most profit but it no longer does, so that doesn't hold true anymore.

 

[zarbityugi]

I heard from somewhere (in a passing conversation, I have NO IDEA of the credibility) that the Rev might start as low as $150! That would just be a dumb idea by Nintendo. Yeah, I want a cheap console. But you see a $150 price tag next to PS3's $500 price tag, which would you decide is a better console? The PS3, of course. That's the same logic behind buying name brand items over generic brand, or squirt guns at wal-mart as opposed to the dollar store. If people see a (much) lower price tag, they will think that it is of a (much) lower quality. That is bad. Really bad.

The 'Cube probably lost profits in the end because either A) it dropped the price and had so many package deals it lost money, B) it had many more produced than were needed (nobody was buying 'Cubes anymore), or C) the Xbox and PS2 were still selling consoles here and there, pulling in some last-minute profits. Or maybe a combo of the three. Anyway, the next gen might be even closer than that simply because of the monstrous (and quite powerful) headstart the Box has.

 

[Zink]

factor in that Nintendo will probably have the best and cheapest extensions, and DS connectivity to encourage more DSs sold in bundle with Rev. Consider the PS3 $800 to make and $600 to sell, I think that's closer.

 

[Chill]

Question. How many GBAs did you see sold with the Gamecube? What exactly makes you think DSs will be sold with the Rev?

Nintendo has historically sold its systems for $200. It is highly likely the trend will continue. Plus you need to think about what is inside the box. The Rev, the stand, the controller, the sensor bar, likely the nunchaku attachmen, and/or the controller shell. For $150?

It is true that we don't know the manufactruing cost of the Rev, but if it is low that is only more incentive to sell higher and bring in some profit.

 

[Osco316]

Question. How many GBAs did you see sold with the Gamecube? What exactly makes you think DSs will be sold with the Rev?

The answer is obvious. Nintendo isn't in it for the money, it only wants to make the fans happy because they're not evil like Micro$oft (lol $ sign) and Phony (Sony lol).

 

[Chill]

Oh snaps Osco actually made me laugh IRL!

 

[beckhamisaqueer]

Question. How many GBAs did you see sold with the Gamecube? What exactly makes you think DSs will be sold with the Rev?

On a related note, did the GBA-connectivity piss anyone else off besides me? I have both a GBA and GC, but the connectivity was stupid. It was used in lame ways, and Nintendo tried to stick in everything. I was actually glad when that trend slowed down.

Anyone else see that as a negative?

 

[Zero Beat]

Except for a few posters, all I see is blinded biased posts. If I have enough money i'm getting a Revolution just because my first ever console was nintendo based.

And Fanboy, the Master Chief would tear Mario apart. Use some logic.

Honestly I don't like the Revolution controller. Seems uncomfortable.

 

[Zink]

How? It fits perfectly into the hand. Just as comfy as a TV remote.

 

[Crimson King]

The numbers of XBox LOSING money per console is so exaggerated. Think about it, they are a business and have ways to make profit, otherwise they wouldn't be in it.

Even if they are losing money, the more people who buy their consoles, the more to buy the games the two sell and make more money off it. The GCN was the cheapest and may have made the most off the consoles, but if no one buys it, it's hard to see how they will make any profit off games.

Also, I am not the person to buy something because it is cheap. I buy it because I want it and I get the most out of it. Unless I feel I will get A LOT out of the rev, I won't buy it because it is cheap. Most people are like that as well.

 

[mouseboy20]

Y'know- I really don't care about the other systems- I'm buying whatever Nintendo throws out there and I'm gonna have fun with it-

The answer is obvious. Nintendo isn't in it for the money, it only wants to make the fans happy because they're not evil like Micro$oft (lol $ sign) and Phony (Sony lol).

 

[Chill]

You know what else is obvious? Oscos sarcasm.

I won't just "take whatever Nintendo throws out there" and I won't just take whatever Sony throws out there either. I've been taking a cautiously optimistic approach to the Rev, because if its games are the same qaulity as the gamecubes it just isn't worth it. I don't want to spend $200+ on a pretty box.

 

[mouseboy20]

I trust that Nintendo will not let me down

 

[Cashed]

mouseboy, you're an inch away from being room banned, or maybe banned altogether if your warnings continue to stack up. You've done nothing but help get this topic even spammier.

Anyways. How do you guys think the name "Nintendo Wii" will go with the public? Will they think "Oh it must be fun it makes you say Wheee it's so enjoyable!" I think everyone thought the name "Xbox 360" seemed weird for Microsoft to take, but Nintendo Wii? Microsoft and Nintendo are both crazy.

tworabidmonkeys (Revolutions): I'm picturing little kids going down slides.

 

[Crimson King]

Until E3 it's impossible to pick ANY console but the 360. Why? Because we can play 360 games. PS3 and . . . "Wii" will of course put games for playing, but it's all speculation. 360 has the current advantage and PS3 has the large established fan base from last gen, which Nintendo claimed to have but the numbers certainly didn't show it.

 

[Destiny Smasher]

Actually, I don't think 360 has a clear-cut advantage, because everyone is waiting to see what the other two consoles will bring--who wants to slap down $400 when you can wait for something better?

PS3 has a large base, but just how many people are REALLY willing to fork up $500?
Ken Kutaragi himself said the PS3 was not designed for the normal household.

Anyway, the names Playstation, Game Boy, XBox, Nintendo...they're all very silly and stupid, but who cares? We play them, we get used to the names, and it works.

At least Nintendo isn't doing the 'add a number after our cheesy name' bit and coming up with a NEW cheesy name. XD

Anyway, most people are probably picking the PS3 right now because it has so much hype built under it.
I'm curious to see just how well it lives up to its hype.

You know they're not gonna announce a price at E3 because that'll turn some people off--guarantee it.
Unless it turns out to be cheaper than everyone thought.

Nintendo's recent announcement definitely proves one thing--we're in for some surprises yet.

 

[zarbityugi]

Surprises are good. The controller was a surprise, the name (Wii? more like Wtf?) was a surprise, so some more surprises are welcome. As long as they're good, and not along the lines of "we're changing mario's name to lance, because we can!" That would be ********.

 

[beckhamisaqueer]

The numbers of XBox LOSING money per console is so exaggerated. Think about it, they are a business and have ways to make profit, otherwise they wouldn't be in it.

Actually, I know for a fact the original Xbox lost money with every console. It made its money of game sales. Don't quote me on this, but I think Microsoft actually lost money on Xbox all together. Games included it that.

 

[Zero Beat]

Well, Microsoft's owner happens to be the richest man in the world. You think he gives a crap lol? I don't think Xbox lost money but good point there with the games.

 

[Crimson King]

The biggest problem I see with the "Wii" is turning off casual gamers. I am a casual console gamer. I don't follow series ritualistically, I rarely complete whole games, and I play sports games with friends. Chances are I won't want to spend the time to master the curve of the new controller, even if it's relatively slim. It's still a curve. The standard controller is something most of us have grown up with and I can figure the controls relatively fast, but the Rev or Wii-mote will have a little bit of a curve to master.

I am still looking forward to E3 because that will determine which console I put money on and how soon I buy a new pc. Hey, I could be forced to retract all my Wii comments.

 

[RaptorHawk]

What kind of curve will the remote have that a standard control wont? If anything I'd think it would have less of a curve. With standard control you memorize what buttons do what..with the remote you have less buttons to worry about and using the controls sensors for actions seem more like common sense actions which would make it easier to learn. Remember Nintendo wants to attract non-gamers. A control with a high learning curve would be bad for this goal.

 

[supermariopro101]

What kind of curve will the remote have that a standard control wont? If anything I'd think it would have less of a curve. With standard control you memorize what buttons do what..with the remote you have less buttons to worry about and using the controls sensors for actions seem more like common sense actions which would make it easier to learn. Remember Nintendo wants to attract non-gamers. A control with a high learning curve would be bad for this goal.

I really don't see your point. The reason it is more of a curve is because there has never been a videogame system that uses a remote as a controller. The regular controller has been around for two decades so everyone is adjusted to it. Why does nintendo do it? Because they want ot be innovative. Whether they are going to be or not is another story.
Of course you can just use the gamecube controller for it. Unfortunately you may be missing out on action if you do though.

 

[kaid]

It is still less of a curve, but current casual gamers have already put work into learning it.

But Nintendo isn't aiming at "casual GAMERS." They're aiming to draw in NONgamers. People who have never played a videogame before, or havn't played in decades. Brain Age and Nintendogs are some of the DS's biggest-selling titles, yet I cannot think of a single person who likes it who would qualify as a "Gamer," at least in the videogaming sense.

 

[RaptorHawk]

I really don't see your point. The reason it is more of a curve is because there has never been a videogame system that uses a remote as a controller. The regular controller has been around for two decades so everyone is adjusted to it. Why does nintendo do it? Because they want ot be innovative. Whether they are going to be or not is another story.
Of course you can just use the gamecube controller for it. Unfortunately you may be missing out on action if you do though.

Yea but you talk like the "standard" controller has been exactly the same the whole time. Virtually every generation the controller has changed form. What makes the remote so different in that aspect? Like I mentioned before. Nintendo is trying to attract non gamers. They are not gonna make a control thats hard to use. That was the whole idea behind less buttons as well.

 

[Crimson King]

I really doubt they hope to bring in someone who doesn't play games. I can't think of any of my friends who would pay $200 to try something out. Most of their friends won't own one either and so on and so forth, so it will be hard to rope in the non-gamers. I just don't see it being attractive to people who don't care about games to begin with.

 

[kaid]

Tell that to the thousands of people who shelled out $150 to play Sudoku, and whatever else comes with Brain Age. Same goes for Nintendogs.

 

[Chill]

Tell that to the thousands of people who shelled out $150 to play Sudoku, and whatever else comes with Brain Age. Same goes for Nintendogs.

But how do you know that these people did not play games before? Someone already mentioned they played Brain Age. If the're on this site chances are they've already been playing games.

 

[zarbityugi]

Please don't group Brain Age with Nintendogs. Brain Age looks like a decent bunch of puzzles, whereas nintendogs looks like... crap. Nintendogs is a game for kids, Brain Age is a game for anyone who doesn't want to lose their faculties with age. Or they want a game that they can play so their parents can't say "video games will turn your brain to mush!". I would like to play Brain Age, it looks like something pretty decent.

 

[Zink]

Nintendo themselves grouped Brain Age and Nintendogs, which, by the way, is selling amazingly.

 

[kaid]

No hardcore gamer I know likes Nintendogs... but it appeals to NORMAL people, or at least some of them. There's a whole lot more nongamers in the world then there is gamers, and nintendo has noticed the Gamers are vanishing.

 

[Chill]

I'm sorry kaid but you can't say Nintendo is reaching a bigger audience because some of your friends don't like Nintendogs. How do you know that this sales aren't coming from the same people who bought Barbies Horse Adventure, Pokemon, etc.?

 

[kaid]

Ah, I never said I didn't know ANYONE, I said I didn't know any GAMERS who liked it.

I know at least three people with nintendogs, who are part of my social groop at school. One of them actually borrows the DS from her boyfriend to play it.

And if the sales are coming from the same people who bought crap games... NINTENDO DOESN'T CARE. A sale is a sale, and Nintendogs and Sudu- I mean, Brain Training, are selling like crazy.

If Nintendo ignores us, it means it doesn't need us anymore.

 

[Zink]

How can you say Nintendo ignores gamers? Noticed MP:H? Twilight Princess? SSB...W? Nintendo is NOT ignoring its fan base, it is simply expanding it.