ZOMG XBOX360 VS. PS3 VS. WII ZOMG

That link is 06 you know that right?

Pre 2009:
-Uncharted for adventure gamers
-Resistance's for Halo fans and Fantastic FPS lovers
-LBP for minor and creative gamers
-SOCOM for tactical and realistic game lovers
-PS1 classics for retro lovers
-Gran Turismo 5 P. for Racing lovers and simulation fans
-Lots of RPG's
-Ninja Gaiden for action lovers

and more. This is expanding. Not Wii Fit Plus.
Wii doesnt offer any hardcore games to me.

 

i know that the article is from 2006 and that is the point, to tell you that neither sony nor microsoft had the intention of expanding the industry to save it from dying. look at 2009 today and look at the gamers on the wii. nintendo expanded the industry offering games for everyone while sony and microsoft are still stuck with the hardcore. bascially nintendo is trying to save the industry by reaching out to other people for potential gamers and microsoft and sony are stuck only with the hardcore and are shrinking. this is why there is no competition for wii and why nintendo should not have reduced the price of the wii because it is a product where no other exists.

ninja gaiden is an action game to reach action lovers but only to those who are able to play it. basically gamers. smash brothers brawl is an action fighting game that is for action lovers and fighting lovers. basically a game for new comers due to the easy controls and for the gamers who are into making serious fighting combos and such.

grans turismo is for racing lovers. mario kart is for racing lovers. simple and easy control and interface.

every game you mentioned are games for gamers. what about the non gamers or lapsed gamer or ex-gamers? there is nothing you can offer to these gamers other then what nintendo has to offer and nintendo is further trying to expand.

 

Why does it have to be easy?
Hard = Bad ?

Again, only nintendo tries to make games for not gamers or newcomers. Rest is making for gamers.

 

First off ultra, where the fuck are your answers to my questions that you have not even addressed at all for the past three posts? Your behavior in this debate is really fucking irritating. As expected, you make another post with even more bullshit, with some repeated again.

I disagree with you. Researching video game technology involves knowing the purpose behind each hardware designed, which also includes knowing how that device would improve and make gaming much better. So, in researching video game technology, you still have the responsibility of researching or studying how and what makes video games fun. Don't even try and spin anything out of this; you won't get anywhere.

I also find it funny how you abused the term, "engineering". Engineering also requires knowing the entire scope of the purpose of the project, not just concentrating on and designing the hardware, otherwise, the latter is entirely pointless. Now I'm curious, have you even worked in the engineering field before? Do you even know what goes on in engineering projects at all? As an engineer myself, I'm very angry that you have used the term, "engineering" inappropriately.

Now, you've pissed me off. In which post have I ever said "Sony won't lose because of ... etc."? You just put words into my mouth, and on top of that, to add insult to the wound, you used a source that I have NEVER FUCKING USED AT ALL IN THIS DEBATE! Not even a shred of a single statement presented in that source was ever used by me.

As for the rest of your bullshit in that paragraph, I'm not going to bother going into it. Because it's the same stupid shit you keep repeating for each of your posts. "Sony and Microsoft don't do much to expand gaming... WAHH-!" *SMACK!* Shut up!

What kind of a response is this?!? For fuck sakes Ultra, why don't you go and do some research and then come back with a better response.

This is horribly pathetic coming from someone that is debating in favor for Nintendo, yet this statement shows how little he knows about the company and their tactics. Ultra, if this was a formal debate being monitored by officials, you would lose immediately with a response like that.

Hey Ultra, before any of the price drops on any console (PS3, X360, and Wii) occured, the Wii had the cheapest price tag out of the three. Then after Microsoft gave two rounds of price cuts on their XBox 360 consoles, and Sony releasing the slimmer, cheaper model of the PS3, the Xbox 360 had the cheapest model (which is the Arcade version) sitting at a cool price of $199, and the Sony's slimmer version of the PS3 had a $299 price tag. And before Wii cut their prices down, they were sitting at $249. Also on top of that, to make things a bitch for Nintendo, Microsoft temporarily offered their top model of the Xbox 360 (which is the Elite) for $249 for two weeks, just matching the price of the Wii. Which placed Nintendo right smack in the middle of the price range of next-gen consoles. That means, if someone could afford a Wii, but they have been eyeing on the PS3, they only need to dig $50 deeper just to afford one. Otherwise, if they are on a low budget, but they want a next-gen game console badly, they can just shell out ~$200 for the Xbox 360 Arcade version compared to ~$250 for the Wii.

In short, Wii was no longer the cheapest console on the market before the price cut of the Wii itself, but after the price of the Wii dropped to $199, Wii was back on par to being the cheapest console with Microsoft's Xbox 360 Arcade console. And considering the current economic condition (as we are still in a recession, by the way, I cited a source on this, so go back to my fucking posts and READ THEM!), most people cannot afford to spend a lot of money on things. Thus, the price of each console is very crucial in this competition of next-gen console gaming.

Natalie has covered economic basics before, and I find it quite sad that you have not payed any attention at all to her posts. Had you have read her posts and gained a gist of understanding from it along with the research that I have done, you would have known the reason to Nintendo's decision of the price cut.

But, you have already shown that you don't read people's posts at all, as your posts are filled with "Microsoft and Sony don't do much to expand video gaming" ad nauseum bullshit. So, let me kindly show you the door out of these debate boards. And don't ever come back to post here again until you know how to debate properly.

On a final note:

This is just plain insulting, no matter what context you put it in. So, by not wishing for Nintendo's price cut, you would prefer to keep consoles away from people that can't afford the $249 price tag?

I really wish I had the capability to punch people in the face through my monitor. Because you really deserve one.

 

Nintendo didn't make crap like ninja bread man-THAT is why I dislike companies such as THQ and EA-they base thier sales and products on precieved thoughts-and somehow make money.

That doesn't make sence-not new comers or gamers?

Dude-anyone is a gammer who plays more than once a day.

It's hardcores and casuals (to me-opinion)-and even then...soooo many sub catagories...


So we shall move on.


ULTRA-Price cuts help sales-would you be happier if the price went up?

Or stayed the same-if it did then nintendo would lose sales-a BAD marketing choice.


...now...


[me=mds64]backs away before he's caught in the cross fire of Hypr and Ultra[/me]

 

If I am able to make crappy games for a console (I mean really crappy) that means there are people who buy those games. You cant see that at ps360 becouse whenerv a game comes, it takes top 3 at Gamefaqs. Only couple of games (wii) can enter, and those are Wii Sports and some rare hardcore Wii games (resident evil-madworld).

Gaming isnt that complicated. You dont have to make games considering you are making them for morons. Player will eventually will get used to the game.
Did you had a chance to read any review for "Demon's Souls". Any. It has the general idea, in every article: We missed how rewarding it is to pass a hard level and how fun is it. You know which console made everyone forget that ?

And gamer is (at least I think) is a person who fallows news and so... My friend's 70 YO grandma loves wii sport, so shes a gamer?

 

...I could barely read due to spelling-but I get your point...and I don't look at gamefaqs or gamespot anymore...


I look at aussie sales charts instead-nintendo is always at top since the wii came out.

I appluad nintendo for making a comeback but am partaially annoyed at some of the shovel ware as a result...

Also-here is something to think about?



Why soo many kiddy games?

The wii is idiot proof-anyone can turn it on and play...


I had difficulty starting a ps3 (took an hour...just for a friend to press a few buttons ) and a 360 (it's easier than the original I admit..but...).

That's why-plus they are cheaper to make for wii-most of those games are single layer dvd games...that use less power.

Porting or making them for 360 is hard-dual layer disc almost always-the graphics they would need to bost just so it doesn't look "like crap" and the ps3...

The blue ray disc are to expensive to bother with-plus add in the 360 problems...

CHeaper for shovel ware on wii-if the wii was the same as the other consoles..what then?

Would all consoles get the same game?


Prehaps they'd choose the best selling system more?

I'd like to know...

 

LoL Im also having hard time to understand you becouse you use english too well

Every console has shovel wares. From GBA to Ps2. But why a kiddie game? Ps2 had shovel wares like Sniper or Conspiray. Why not a mature games? It shouldnt be that hard.
Oh I know! Becouse blockbuster games are not! Why try to create something new while your console doesn't?

Ps3-Pc-360. Never Wii. Instead they make new games with limits to Wii.
CoD5.
Overlord 2.
CoD3.
Resident Evil.
Silent Hill.

Is it a success to have games with Ps2? Silent Hill Shattered Memories (ps2 and wii) and more.

And as far as I know most selling console is from sixth gen, Ps2. And its dying... and not many producers are choosing Wii for sequels.

 

price cuts help push sales but that is just short term.
remember that it's the software that puts value. reducing the price and people don't find value in your software line up then it's useless rather you reduce prices or not because no one wants it.

what makes pc great is the type of software one is able to use. if all the software on pc were office base software, such as ms word, excel, ect.... then no one will buy a pc other then those who use those software.

so yes price reduction does promote sales but it's only a short term effect. when sony reduced ps3 last year, it pushed sales just a bit. now they are reducing prices and it'll push sales just a bit. and later they'll reduce again and it'll repeat. what matters is the software and the software that is on the ps3/360 is restrictive to only hardcore gamers. is this bad, no but if you consider the wii, it's better because it's outside the circle while the ps3/360 is inside the circle. that is the wii can get more sales because they make software to those people. this is why the 360/ps3 is going down and only stuck at their respective sales figures because they only get gamers while nintendo is getting gamers and everyone.

 

lol Ps3 slim sold more than one million in one month.
software on ps360 are able to anything wii can, just with one tool.
No comment about kiddy games and gay shovel wares.
Same stuff again and again.
You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

people buy hardware for the software. if the software is weak to the user, then they will not buy the hardware. this is why price reduction doesn't do much. the value of the hardware is based on the software. look again at the pc as an example. the pc has so much software that it's worth the cost to buy one, even a cheap one as there are still software that one can use with the limitation of the hardware.

look at the portables. the ds is the most valued portable gaming device simply because the value of the software is greater then the psp. it's greater not in the sense of abundence [though it is put into consideration] but rather there is software that is for the user. just as how if one owns a pc and the only software on pc were office type software, then the value of the pc is useless to a gamer as there is no games for the gamer. this is why nintendo should not have droped the price of the wii as the value of the wii is strong with the expanded audience. i still don't know why they reduced the prices as they were in no threat by sony nor microsoft. if nintendo have delivered the software lineup to help push the sales of the wii, the price of the wii would have become the expensive console [no price reduction needed] as the software value is greater due to what the people place on it and that makes the value of the hardware greater.

the ds is what nintendo hoped the wii would have become and it's something that i myself thought would have happened too. the wii is cheaper, the focus is on gameplay, less risk, a world for both control freaks and motion controller freaks. but for some reason it is not happening and i and the many wonderers on the internet can't figure out why.

also, if the value of the software is strong, a price reduction is never needed for the software, as it has a value the consumers see and it's worth their money to pay full price for that software. this explains why nintendo wouldn't need to reduce prices on some of it's games because the value of these games that consumers see and impose on them gives them a high value, which they are then willing to pay for such prices.

if you look at the games on the ps/360, the value of the games on these systems are bad. look at last year with the new prince of persia game and the dead space or was it mirrors edge game. the game was released and a month or so the prices were slashed. when companies slash prices, it's to motivate sales but it tells you that the consumers don't find the value of the software worthwhile and it's the reason for the price reduction. when people go crazy and starts buying the software like hotcakes after several price reductions, that means that is the selling point or rather the value of which consumers see in the product.

look at the office programs from microsoft. for the average gamer [maybe consumer as well], they would never pay full price for microsofts office suite program and it explains the reason for pirating. people pirate because the value of which the software they find is very crap to them and this is why they pirate. i pirate office 2000 pro because i only needed the program to write my school papers and do other school work for it. other then that the program is pretty useless as i won't be using in my personal life. additionally, i have alternatives on the pc that are more useful for my personal use then microsofts office suite. this is why pirating occurs, because the value of the software to the user is utter crap. if we consider the massive pirating on pc, it suggests the games have gotten really bad. if all the people in the world knew that open office is free and they can are in access to getting the software easily, then i believe pirating for microsofts office suite would decline because no one would have to worry about it as they can get an alternative for free. the only way to stop that is if microsoft makes a program or something to prevent that. i've stoped caring and about and pirating microsofts office suite when i found out several years ago that a similar program called open office was available. the only thing to concern about is compatibility as ms often makes new releases and the extentions and such won't work with the current because it's still in development. but other then that no one would pirate or care about microsofts office suite.

 

Then we have more price cuts
MOAR
Until they are free D:

 

it's never going to be free because either the company goes broke, pull the plug or that the price point reaches a moment where consumers find it acceptable and that is when they will start buying the product. i believe the value of the ps3, of which when people will start buying it, is probably below $200, probably like $150 or could be less. no one knows but the people and even the people don't know, it's like those instincts sort of stuff in which you just don't know.

 

EA always reduces their prices. Only activision doesn't.
How can you say they are valuless? I,myself found Turok(ps3) and pokemon link(ds) very good but their price combined was 8$.
Nintendo dont do that becoz basicly %97.6 of Wii users dont buy their own games, their parents do. Parents buy for their kids to play. Go out and look at the shops today. Nintendo games are more expensive than 3rd party games becoz dummies always buy them, whatever the price.
And you cant say a game is bad becoz of its price nor its awesome. You cant say anything at all. Player decides it.

 

Ah you got me XD

Well, everyone seems to base the brand name for kiddy...after all, nintendo, before it became a gaming company 9when they made playing cards-hanafuda) was ALWAYS a family company.

They dislike violence..but times are shifting...they need something...

So how in the world does NOT lowering price help?

What-lower it slightly and then bring it up again?

Or leaving it up while the systems go down?

What would you suggest to promote sales quickly?


OTHER than software-that ain't gonna help much, at least the way I see it.

 

have you noticed that games on the ds and wii are still at their initial price point after years of being out in the market. how is it that these games are still continued on being sold at those prices while other games do not.

you only reduce prices when sales aren't there. it means people don't want to pay for that price because the value they see in the game is lower then what the companies are asking for. companies reduce prices when sales aren't expected after a certain period. this is where pricing becomes important when releaseing games. take resident evil 4 wii for instance, during release i believe it was $30 on wii and about $20 on gamecube/ps2 and i would say that is a good price point for the value of the game as it's an existing title that has been in the market and the only thing that was upgraded was the controller using the wii remote. for capcom to make consumers pay a higher price, no one would have bought it because the value, according to the consumers is lower as the game already exists and the only value to the game is the implementation of the motion controller.

the wii has something new, the motion controller, and it beats graphics. how come no one mentions that. nintendo is the first company to have motion controls over graphics, graphics of which was last generations priority. the games mentioned on those lists are offering nothing new other then new graphics and the same old gameplay, which is a partial reason why their value as games decreased. ask yourself, if you watched transformers in hd 1080p as opposed to 480p, does it make a difference? if graphics was revolutionary, the last generation console buyers would have jumped the wagon for the ps3/360 due to their great visuals, but they didn't because it wasn't the revolution of this generation, it was the motion controller.

you can't promote sales quickly because that is just marketing, what most people typically call hype. it'll only work momentarily and that's the push of software sales on the ps3/360. look at fable 2 last year, there was so much hype about the game. now look at it today with less hype and you'll see that it isn't going anywhere any time soon. look at smash brothers brawl on wii, it's still selling.

 

You always talk about same crap.
I give up.
But I dont think you should tell your thoughts at a forum that allows swearing.
You might get hurt.

 

I would choose either the 360 or wii. Not ps3

 

if you look at the new sales chart for japan, http://ps3.ign.com/articles/103/1035891p1.html, the software wii fit plus is selling strong as well as the wii console. this tells you that the software and not the price drop of the wii console, is the reason for the increase in wii hardware sales. this goes back to what i was saying in the previous posts i've made.

if you look at the ps3, there is no software in that chart. it tells you that the ps3 hardware increase is not due to the software but the price. and the purpose of sales isn't directly in relations to the software of the ps3, that is to say people maybe buying the ps3 as a blu-ray player or as multimedia hub or like an htpc sort of thing rather then a game system. if people were buying the ps3 for the software, then we'd see software sales in that chart but we don't.

but this is all crap to some of you.

 

Its all crap to all of us.
Only you are not getting it
^^