WiiGeePeeYou (Hollywood) what IS it ?
- Thread starter Megadrive1988
- Start date
- Status
The counter-argument being that if Wii is indeed an overclocked NGC, then the devs don't have the excuse of having to get used to another architecture. Note that I don't consider those titles the be and all of what Wii can do, but it's certainly a stretch to project the growth potential from the 360 (using as an example a title started on NGC, then ported to Xbox then to 360) on the Wii.
Occam's Razor here. What is more likely, Nintendo releasing an upgraded NGC and making a quick buck on it because die-hard fans (myself included, curse my weak resolve) will buy it for the new controller and because the competition priced itself out of the mainstream, or Wii being a super-duper powerful hardware crippled by early development on NGC kits without even a single tech demo showing its true power ?
Unless they just repeated the same engines (eg two TEV units exactely equal to the GC ones (even then it would probably take some time to do good use of the second one)) any new HW would take time to be used, specialy wonder this circunstances.
They could easly have 4x times (180nm to 90nm) the silicon (up to 8x the memory if they used 1T-SRAM-Q(well less 5%)) and still have the console at the same 100$ which give them proffit for years now.
None said a "super-duper powerful hardware" but between RS the game and the E3 trailer (which could be a good tech demo IMO) there is a big diference and that would probably be done with very low cost HW.
Also better HW being revealed later can be usefull for no imediate purposes, if something defy Occam's Razor is strategy (let it be militar, in gaming (like chess, Poker and "ours games"), or in bussiness), history had proven that.
aren't we being a little bit closed minded here? i mean, chastising the wii for not being a xb360/ps3 price-scheme-wise? no matter how much cheaper from its production cost a console will be sold at, there's a li'l bit more to a console than that.
/* a disclaimer - the following is not for the proverbial average consumer, this is for the seasoned, tech-literate gamer who knows what he or she wants, but who, at the same time, is price sensitive.*/
first of all, why compare based on what piece of equipment one gets - it's not a desktop, it's a closed entertainment device - it either has what you need, i.e. those system sellers, the game genres, or whatever rocks your boat, or it does not. you're not buying this on computatonal potential, you're buying it for certain end-user qualities either present there or not. if you're really going to compare consoles then comare them for their definitive quality - the titles that are on them. let me tell you something about you - you're not a nintendo fan, you're a nintendo games addict. and this is the reason you, me, and others like us will buy the console for - not to run SETI@home or do faster filters under photoshop on a box bearing the 'nintendo' label.
second, now that we're actually looking at the meat of a console, let's see how prices stand there: wii, believe it or not, is the only console this gen that keeps the game prices from last gen, while at the same time takes those games to a new level, a level not possible on last generation machines. no, i don't see mp3 done on any of the last gen consoles, do you? so the $1M question is: do you consider the games you'll get on, say, the x360 sufficeintly more rewarding, that their price premium would be justified? and vice versa, do you consider the wii games (once we get to know them, that is) sufficently gratifying, justifying their lower but not negligibel price?
if your answer to the above is - yes, i think the next metroid, mario galaxies, RRR & red steel, all with the original new controls, are worth 50 bucks each, then with the attached cost of $250 to play all those, you end up with a grand total of $450.
now, pick any of the other two consoles - either a 'box or a station - pick those titles there which you think are worth their price (at $60 each, generally). do the summing, eventually add the attached cost of the platform - observe the grand total. compare to the wii. first compare on a (expected) gratification factor from the titles, and then, apply the price factor. eventually you should end up with an astimate of the sort: console X gives me this perceived fun value at M bucks, and wii gives me that perceived fun value at 450 bucks. now, if the above turns up to be an obvious inequality in favor of console X then, for god's sake, don't buy a wii! save your money for that other console! but, if the inequlity turns out to be not so obvious, or, god forbid, it ends up in favor of the wii then, for crying out loud, what does it friggin matter what FLOPS does the wii GPU yield - do you really care so deeply about it that you'd feel ripped off about the system's price per se?
Last edited by a moderator:
As has been mentioned a thousand times before, devs never got used to the GC architecture to begin with. Factor 5 is gone, so that leaves Retro, Capcom, and uh...Sega? Yeah, F-Zero GX is pretty sweet, so I'll throw them in there. Other than that, I didn't see anything from anyone indicating that they're ready for next-level evolution in GC architecture. Twilight Princess is a Gamecube port and looks a generation ahead of most Wii 3rd-party titles.
Remember, Wii is a lot more than a silicon upgrade. Besides raw processing, there's also the Wii Channel/Connect 24 stuff (it's free, remember?), and a few other niceties like the more expensive disc loading mechanism, WiFi, half-gig flash, etc. And from this talk of energy savings, they've worked pretty hard to shrink this thing down to a stupidly small size and keep it running cold, which I'm sure didn't cost $0.00. It's no PS3, but it's a far more complete package than the 360 Core. Add all that up and release yourself from the irrational belief that Nintendo is morally obligated to take a multi-billion dollar loss, and $250 doesn't sound like such a ridiculous price.
You know, kind of like when you get right down to it, $130 for a DS really isn't an unfair price at all.
Well that's not quite what I was speaking about. I may have misread your earlier post but I thought you were saying, "PDO is an Xbox port and doesn't look very good but we know 360 is far more capable, therefore GCN ports to the Wii also mean that the Wii is far more capable".
I don't know actually, I think they broke even upon launch but made money on them (even with price cuts) later on.
That sure is possible but then would stretch the similarities between GCN and Wii at which point, the assumption I'm making would be invalid.
Maybe I misread a previous statement. /shrug.
Iron Tiger
Regular
Is that net or gross? Does that take into account R&D costs or building a new online network and maintaining it at no residual cost to the consumer? They said they'll take a loss on hardware, they said they're breaking even, and a bunch of people are assuming that they're making a profit. In different lights, all of these things may be true.
I'm not objecting to the Wii not being based on the PS3/360 pricing scheme, I'm merely pointing that tinfoil theories about the console being a powerhouse in disguise are starting to become delusional. The argument I responded to was basically that the pricepoint indicated some secret power of Wii because it came out at $100 more than expected, without any indication of said secret power being shown into games. SMG, ZTP and MP3 may be very nice-looking games, but that's because of art direction, not processing power.
I agree with the rest of your post, though : the price of a console has to be evaluated not only on the HW side, but need to take into account the experiences it will provide. Based on that, I'm getting a Wii day one.
Luckily for you I've got the memory of an elephant.
When they lowered the price to 150 USD, Perrin Kaplan said that the were breaking even at 150$. So that means they were makiing a profit at 199 USD for quite a while. The launch price must hve been chosen similarily. When the lowered the price to 99 USD I remember an interview (I think this time it was Fils-Aimeee) in which it was disclosed that they took a small loss.The way I read it is that they figure the cost to manufacter it is around $250,but the sale of extra peripherals and software will put them over the top. But who knows exactly she was very vague.
You might have been basing it off what Reggie said. He said "the entire Wii thing is profitable both hardware and software" That can be interpreted different ways obviously. Is he talking overall hardware including peripherals? Does mean the entire thing is profitable once you fator in hardware software sales?
I can't wait to until a final unit hit's the right hands so someone can take it apart and answer all these thing.
Just to point that while Nintendo games will keep the same price (someone from Nintendo said so, probably it is posted many pages ago too) on the XB you will have soon the Classics and on the PS3 you will have the Platinum version of the games that will probably be less than 1/2 of the todays price, for someone like me who is used to buy those games it is much better than Nintendo scheme. Plus for now we dont now if third party games will cost more than 50$ (now I am unsure if they can lower the price of the games
).Going off topic I am really interested in know why they will put so many games at full price for a so little userbase (ie 30 launch games for 4M users) specially if some of the games are Zelda and RS.
Just to point that while Nintendo games will keep the same price (someone from Nintendo said so, probably it is posted many pages ago too) on the XB you will have soon the Classics and on the PS3 you will have the Platinum version of the games that will probably be less than 1/2 of the todays price, for someone like me who is used to buy those games it is much better than Nintendo scheme. Plus for now we dont now if third party games will cost more than 50$ (now I am unsure if they can lower the price of the games
I remember the interview where that was said. However, I believe it was a translation from Japanese which might have lost a lot of its intended meaning. Anyway, I don't believe that there won't be a 30$-player's choice line like there is now. Market segmentation is the 101 of Marketing really.
I've been wondering about that myself. I guess they hope for sales similar to the DS by releasing games appealing to virtually everyone. Remember: Zelda and RS are not interesting to the non-hardcore gaming crowd Nintendo wants to target.
Also: The value of a game is dictated not only by production costs, but also by what people are willing to pay. I guess many people are used to 50$ games by now and perceive them as well worth it, regardless of the actual production costs.
we're yet to see about that. though nintendo are generally perceived as rather persistent on the original prices of their titles, during the previous generation ninty had the player's choice re-print program where prices did get cut considerably. so i say we wait and see.
Plus for now we dont now if third party games will cost more than 50$ (now I am unsure if they can lower the price of the games
well, if history is to be taken as an indicator, 1st party titles on the nintendo platforms usually hold the price crown (and for the longest too) - 3rd parties don't overshoot them.
i'd venture to guess nintendo don't expect all 4M units to go into the hands of zelda and RS fans : )
Last edited by a moderator:
Ooh-videogames
Regular
It wasn't a suggestion of the Wii having some secret power, from what I have gathered, reading post on several boards, is that it is widely believe that technically, Wii is a OC'd GC with extra memory. Also, what we have privy to our eye's are examples of what to expect from the hardware, which it is not. The launch games actually being developed on OC'd GCs, only say's more about what is acheiveable on a OC'd GC, then what is possible when actually being developed on Wii hardware. The $150 pricepoint, IMO has more to do with developers judging the console devkits they had in front of them at the time. Devs themselves have said its more powerful then the Xbox, but some titles don't even match Xbox titles visually.
I don't see why its so hard to understand. No one said its secretly a powerhouse. To echo what many have said already, most third party devs lack any real experience with this architecture past PS2 ports. Since Wii is not based on PC tech, it will take time before devs really finds its strengths and weaknesses relative to the hardware available.
I also think it is a bad move but I wouldnt be suprissed
Dont you think that the first 6M console will be bought by hardcore gamers?
True but but that only matter if you do have a real big budget to spend, so you can buy anything you want. But most people will only buy 2-3 games, RS and at least one N branded games or at least two N games seems the most popular option, that gives a really small margin for 7 UBI games + 6 EA ones + Activision ones +...
Indeed but I think it is mostly because of the low sucess of the console, plus just very few had that honor (IIRC MP and SM:S didnt had it), very late (it has just some good time after Pikmin 2 release that Pik got its low price) and the price cut hadnt been as big as the XB/PS2 versions. I fear that it a bigger and more constant flow of growing userbase they will not do this again
Maybe it is just here but 3rd parties cost and dont get price cuts.
Do you want to bet
.I mean LZ:WW (and many didnt like the Cel shading) sold 4,3M LZ:OT sold more than 7M, SM:S (also didnt had the best reviewns) sold 5,5M, SSB:S sold 6M+ (launch game) and GC had never been as popular as Wii or the games as interesting (not necessarely good) as this ones.
Personally I think there will be ~5 games very popular games and a lot of bad sellers ones: 2-3 N games + RS + Madden and one more popular.
In fact when they talked about the 6M consoles they said that expected ~18M games sold in the same time, if LZ=2M (games sold) and SM:G=2M, MP3=2M, SMB:B=2M, RS=2M (most of those are very conservative numbers, probably you could) you already have more than 1/2 of the games sold and just talked about less than 1/6 of the games (everyone directely related to Nintendo).
I find really hard to see that most of the games will sell well enought.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
