100 million people could have bought a ps2 and an xbox. But 100 million people didn't. At the absolute maximum, 20 million people bought both an xbox and a ps2, but it may have only been as many as 5 million.
So yes, you can buy a ps3 and a wii, or a ps3 and a 360. Personally, I'm fairly certain that within 3 years, I'll own all 3. However, most people aren't like you, and it's the majority, not the minority you fall into, that determines which console is most successful. And the most successful console gets the most games. So while articles like this may not influence your decision, it's clearly telling on what the majority will be looking at when they make their buying decisions this holiday season. And if the majority thinks the ps3 is not worth the price, you may find in a year or two that that ps3 you paid a premium for isn't all that much fun anymore.
Because no one actually wants to buy one (a standalone blu-ray player)?
All the complaining and bitching about the PS3 is because people want a PS3, but they also want to be able to pay their mortgage. When given a choice between a gaming machine, and shelter, electricity, water & food, one side of that scale is going to weigh more heavily than the other.
I, personally, am a major Nintendo fan, but I still want a PS3. However, I just have no way of justifying the necessary expenditure.
To be fair, I've also never paid more than $80 for a DVD burner. I was perfectly willing to wait for the price to decrease. I'll do the same for the PS3, assuming it actually ends up worth buying.
It's true that underground lines require less maintenance. A lot less maintenance. If we changed all our lines from overhead to underground, NES would have to layoff 4/5 of their maintenance team. Rather than realizing that it would take years to convert every powerline in Nashville from overhead to underground so they'd have excellent job security until they retired, they have decided not to convert to underground lines. I wouldn't be surprised if this is true in other areas, but I know that's the deal here. So everytime there's a thunderstorm the power goes out, and the cable goes out with it, cause the cable lines follow the powerlines.
Have you ever played an RTS on a pc? They have a cursor also. When the cursor hits the edge of the screen, the screen moves to follow the cursor. Using the Wiimote as a cursor doesn't stop you from using it as camera control.
The first is the idea that the Wii is 'less powerful' than the 360 and the PS3. That's an interesting statement, and from certain perspectives, it is true. From a graphical standpoint it will certainly be less powerful. Which is something that didn't seem to affect the PS2 one way or the other. However, much like the GC, it is a very gameplay oriented machine. There are a number of tweaks to the Wii that will improve it's performance with a number of critical gameplay features, such as AI and physics. Certainly it will never be able to produce as many onscreen models with as nice textures as the 360 or PS3, but it will do quite impressive things with what it does have.
Next, the primary reason the controller is a big draw is because it will make games possible that simply are not possible on the other consoles. These games will be exclusive to the Wii. All games made by Nintendo will also be exclusive to the Wii. That leaves 3rd party games. If you've been reading developer comments, the general trend is less and less exclusive games. More 3rd parties are saying they'll have to release a game for all consoles just to continue making a profit. Any game that can be done on the PS3 or 360 can be done on the Wii, just graphically less intense. So if you get a Wii, you'll have access to more exclusive games than you will on any other platform. Certainly there will be exclusive games for 360 & PS3. PS3 has a lot of games that they make in-house. Most pc game makers will only port their games to 360 becaue it's a fairly quick, easy port job, with a familiar (XNA) environment. Start looking at what games are developed by 1st and 2nd parties, and base your decision on that. 3rd party offerings are going to start becoming less and less exclusive over time.
As far as copying the controller, it's not as easy as you think. The PS3 controller is about as close as anyone can come without violating Nintendo patents. They'll have to find a way around those patents (which means developing new technology, instead of leveraging existing technology as Nintendo has) before they can copy the controller. And even if they do get it within one year, they'll have to prove that their solution is comparable to the Wii controller, or no one will buy it. The only peripheral that has ever caught on was the Dual Shock controller for the PS1. No peripheral before or since has caught on with that level of support, and there was a reason for it. It could also play every single game already out for the system. It was an entirely optional upgrade. Anything that properly emulated the Wii controller would not necessarily work for games already out, meaning less people would buy it, and less developers would utilize it. In fact, if you remember, on the PS1, even after the dual shock was released, the analog control was still optional in all but a very few games.
It still comes down to the games. Wii will have Nintendo's games, which no one else will have, and can at best imitate. It will have games designed exclusively to utilize the controller. It will have a varied mix of casual and hardcore titles. It will have all of the major crossplatform 3rd party titles, often with added functionality for the Wiimote. It probably won't have any version of GTA or God of War. It all depends on what you base your decisions on.
I understand your point, but the thing to remember is, video games aren't very realistic.
If you've ever been in a sword fight, you know they don't tend to last very long. Long drawn out wars in the middle ages were done by people with lots of training, and who were pretty high on adrenaline because they were in danger of their lives.
I have no doubt an adequate sword fighting game could be made, but it's not suitable for Zelda, because Zelda is 100 hours of gameplay, with a lot of sword fighting involved.
And actual game using the Wiimote as a sword fighting mechanic would have to be primarily focused on that, and each fight would only be about as long as a fight in your average fighting game (Soul Calibur, Street Fighter), with the ability to take a small break between fights to rest. A 10-minute fight, with a 1-minute break, would allow an average gamer to probably work their way through 20 or 30 fights in one sitting before they get too tired to fight anymore.
It also depends a lot on what type of fighting style you're using. A fencer uses very small movements, but tends to have longer fights. Those fights would not be very tiring at all. Using Iajutsu would require much more intense movements, but such a fight would be over within seconds (if you're any good). Using any standard samurai, ninja or knight fighting style, you would tend to see much larger movements, and those would definitely be the most tiring. Also to be noted, most fencing attacks (except lunges) are done using only the wrists as well. And the Wiimote is substantially lighter than a Rapier. By a lot. I mean, a whole lot, and don't even get me started on people fencing with Sabres.
As far as the pointing, it's better than a mouse because it not only has height and width, it also has depth. Not only can you point at things to the right, left, top and bottom but you can also point at things farther in. There are a lot of ideas that can be borne of such possibilities. Maybe between the Wiimote and Vista's 3D GUI, 3D mice will become popular.
That will vary depending on the game. For most FPS, you move with the nunchuk and aim/fire with the Wiimote, so you can set the nunchuk down, and aim/fire with the Wiimote 1-handed if necessary.
As for people who 'prefer' the classic controller, most of that preference comes from having used it for years. There is essentially no difference between the Wiimote-Nunchuk combo and a classic controller, except that you can move both hands independently of each other (and, of course, certain difference in where buttons and such are located). I'm not sure what you mean about ergonomics, but both the nunchuk and Wiimote are designed to be very comfortable. However, the Wii does have a classic controller that can be used which is (annoyingly enough) set up almost exactly like a dual shock controller, only shaped differently.
No one has said much about the long term effects, but from what I know of RSI's, the Wiimote should not be a problem as long as you aren't doing the exact same movement repeatedly. RSI's are a result of repeating a single movement, varied movements (such as those made when performing different hits in tennis) are generally less of a problem (unless you do it for several hours a day, day after day, then it can become an issue, but then, the movements made with a standard controller present the same issue, as does using a keyboard).
As for your question in a later comment about shifting your entire body during a game, that is a concern. That may be what the 'Home' button on the Wiimote is for, but no one actually knows for sure.
First, the point of the controller is not to improve gameplay. It's to make control more transparent so that gameplay is the focus, not the controller.
Second, like a touch screen, it allows for gameplay mechanics that otherwise would not be possible.
Yes, I'm being a rampant fanboy, but I think the Wii deserves it. I honestly have not been this excited about what is essentially a way of distracting myself in my entire life. I know the Wii controller is not the best possible control for every type of game, but then, neither is an analog joystick, or a Dpad. The difference is, the Wii (much like the DS) offers all of these options. The old, and the new. Sure, you lose a few buttons, but how many console games can you think of that honestly utilize all 8 buttons easily reachable on a standard controller for anything worthwhile? Other than fighting games, I can only think of a few, and if you're going to abstract control anyway, replacing a button press with a gesture (or a combination of a button press and a gesture) is equally effective.
You do realize that first sentence doesn't actually make sense.
An abstract control device does nothing to focus you on the game, because it is an abstract. That means that for every action you wish to perform in game, you have an abstract layer it has to pass through before you get the result you want. A direct control device lacks that abstract layer, and therefore requires one less neural pathway to perform. It's the difference between thinking, "I want to attack, so I press A," and thinking, "I want to attack, so I attack." That's a matter of biology.
Not that that means the Wiimote will be any different, mind you. It is still very much an abstract device, just as a mouse and keyboard are. However, in some cases (Wii Sports being the showcase) it is a very direct device. You don't have to think about both what you want to do, and what you need to accomplish to do it, you just think about what you want to do. Abstract control cannot possibly be more immersive than direct control.
And believe me, there is a very, very steep learning curve to using a standard controller. Going from an FPS to a Platformer, it takes the average person from several minutes to a half hour to completely switch gears between two very different control schemes.
....I so think you're missing the point. Let me see if I can try to explain.
I will never, ever, in my life, play Golf again. Not Ever. I am 100% certain of this fact, and nothing short of a guaranteed $1 million dollars could even hope to sway me.
On the other hand, I play golf arcade games all the time with my friends. I'm not entirely sure why I enjoy them, I just do. It could be the lack of sunlight. Not having to walk a quarter mile between holes. Or just because actual golf, when compared to arcade golf, is just downright boring.
I do not play Guitar, but I have friends who do play Guitar and they love Guitar Hero. I can only assume the reason for that is, while yes, you can play any of those songs on a regular guitar, you don't get the benefit of having an audience clap along with you and cheer for you unless you're already a pretty big name. Out of every 1 million people who learn to play guitar well, maybe 10 will make in in a band that goes anywhere. Those 10 guys will get the adulations of thousands or millions of people. The rest of us just get the satisfaction of being able to play the song.
In Guitar Hero, we get the satisfaction of being able to play the song, and at least the simulation of adoring fans. That, I think, is clearly the difference between the two.
One other thing. While I do enjoy Guitar Hero, I just don't think I will ever learn to play the guitar. You see, I have hobbies and interests. Lots of them. Already. Adding guitar playing to that list will take time away from my existing hobbies. As playing video games is one of those hobbies, playing Guitar Hero did not take time away from an existing hobby, it fit comfortably within it. Now, I can play 30 mins of Guitar Hero, then move on to something else, or not play for a few weeks if other hobbies intervene. If I were to learn to play Guitar, I'd have to dedicate a significant amount of time to it, with consistency, so I'd be able to maintain some skill.
The final estimation, however, is that playing a guitar has no built in punishment/reward system. In Guitar Hero, you have an exact measurement of how well you did. Playing a regular guitar in your room, you only have your own musical talent to tell how well you did, and some people are tone deaf. Those people can still play Guitar Hero by matching up colors, whereas they'd never be able to really play an actual guitar. More importantly, the only people who will laugh at you when you're playing Guitar Hero are your friends (and an entirely fake, and therefore non-threatening, audience). Playing in front of a crowd at a venue and being laughed at by 50+ total strangers is a hell of a lot more stressful.
I...I don't think this was meant as a reply to anything I said, but I'll bite.
Final Fantasy VII, as a game, absolutely pales in comparison to it's predecessors. I have played and beaten FFVII twice. It was okay. I have played Chrono Trigger, FFVI, FFIV & FFV more times than I can count. I play through Chrono Trigger once every other year because it's just that good. I haven't played FFVII, FFVIII or FFIX since I got a PS2.
Mario 64, on the other hand, was a significant departure and improvement over its predecessors. I would be hard put to say it's a better game, because it's just so damn different. I think I actually like SMB3 more. That doesn't change the fact that Mario 64 still remains one of the most impressive video game achievements of all time.
Of course, this is my personal opinions. In my personal experience, no game has impressed me graphically since Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. That game was an absolute visual experience I have never forgotten. Though games have visibly gotten better, they're no longer impressive. Everything after that has just sort of been expected.
One last thing I need to mention, I have heard that most developers have been hounded by Nintendo to use their API when dealing with Graphics modes/resolution (and other hardware based features) for "Forward Compatibility" reasons; this could be that Nintendo has recognized that in 2011 when they release the successor they want all games to be compatible or they could plan a Wii HD to be released in 2008 being that increasing the performance of the GPU to handle higher resolutions has no effect on gameplay; and a good API should be able to handle surround sound in both Pro-Logic II and Dolby Digital 5.1.
Hmmm, I was not aware of that. But it could just be because Nintendo plans to continue offering backwards compatibility & the virtual console on future machines, and code that uses their API will be easier to emulate on a new hardware architecture than code that uses unique hardware tweaks. I still think it's a good idea either way. As long as their API is decent, which I've heard it's much improved over the original Gamecube API.
.....did you bother to read that chart you linked to at all?
That chart shows sales of the PS2 ranging from 11/01 to 05/06. It only lists sales for the DS ranging from 11/04 to 05/06. So, the PS2 has a 3 year lead. While we're at it, this shows only American sales, not sales for the rest of the world. Also, it appears to be lacking sales figures for 3 months for the DS.
I took the liberty of doing some calculations and comparisons. In the 14 months listed on the chart (from 11/04 to 12/05 when they list the total) the DS has a total of 3,817,883 units sold (this is remembering that they're missing 3 whole months of sales data for some reason).
I calculated the 1st 14 months of PS2 sales (11/01 to 12/02, with no missing sales data) and came up with a total of 11,464,172. That means the DS has sold at least 33.3% as well as the PS2 in the US. If the Wii were to sell 4 times as many units as the DS, it would then be selling 133.2% as well as the PS2.
Now, this is remembering 2 facts. The first, we're missing 3 whole months of sales data for the DS (although that's admittedly 02/05-04/05 when it's likely the DS didn't sell much in the US). The second, this is only US sales data. The DS is outselling the PSP by anywhere from 150% to 200% in Europe. The DS is also outselling the PSP by anywhere from 300% to 600% in Japan (with the DS Lite routinely selling more units than every other console, portable or otherwise, combined each week).
Now, your argument that the home console & handheld console markets are entirely separate is valid, and it's impossible to predict success based on the sells of one compared to the other, but the point people are trying to remake is: Nintendo's business strategy has altered significantly from last generation. The DS is the only thing we have to go on to consider how well this business strategy will work. In comparison, the PSP has a very similar business strategy to that being utitilized by the GC, PS2, PS3, Xbox & 360, and in most of the world, it's getting slaughtered. What this means is that Nintendo appears to have a superior business model, and if they can adequately represent that business model in the home console market (meaning the Wii meets or exceeds the expectations that exist for it), the only history we have to compare shows us that it will outsell anything that has ever been released in the gaming market.
So, while it might turn out to be wrong, and the Wii may be a horrible, horrible flop, I think it's still a pretty fair prediction that the Wii will 'win' this console cycle.
I would also like to add that saying "Wii will win" makes me feel like a five year old girl with a speech impediment. God do I hate alliteration.
An excellent response, but you did make one mistake. Several of the games demoed at E3 by Sony were running at 1080p. So you will see some 1080p games (like Gran Turismo...whenever it releases). Assuming you actually have a tv that supports it, of course.
I'm not entirely sure your definition of failure and my definition of failure are the same. I own over 40 GC games, and only one of them do I regret buying (the second TMNT game was total ass).
And even though I was only a poor college student at the time, I clearly recall owning over 20 n64 games (far more than I owned on the PS1) and enjoying every single one of them. I also rented over 10 games that brought great joy to my life. (To compare, I own about 60 PS2 games, about 5 of which I regret buying. But, to be fair, about 40 of those games are RPG or Strategy games.)
Windwaker was fun. I don't remember if I ever died playing it, I do remember it wasn't stupidly frustrating, if that's what you mean. There was a long stretch near the end that was disappointing, but overall a good game.
What was wrong with the original GBA? I quite enjoyed the original GBA, and still have it. I never picked up an SP, because it never made a difference to me. Now, I do think the DS Lite is better than the DS, but I have a few friends who prefer the original DS simply because it's larger. That's more a matter of preference than failure. In fact, people are still buying the original GBA, so obviously some people prefer it.
And I don't know what you're talking about as far as the GC controller. It is, flat out, the best controller I had ever held until I got ahold of the new 360 controller, which is basically the same controller with a few key upgrades. I also prefer the heightened sensitivity of the Nintendo style analog thumbstick over the PS2 style, or the horribly crappy, inaccurate original Xbox analog. So that wasn't so much a failure as you being strange. The controller worked perfectly in SSBM, I never had a second of trouble from it.
Nintendo has never let me down. I own more PS2 games than I do GC games (I only own about 12 Xbox games), yet I can guarantee you I've spent more time playing my GC than I have my PS2 hands down. Fewer games, but with much, much better replayability. Even the ports are generally better because the GC controller is better, but, of course, that's a personal preference.
And I'm sorry, but every game you've just listed there? All of them except God of War is 3rd party. Xenosaga, Digital Devil Saga, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, Dragon Quest, and Devil May Cry all either have been, or plan to have, sequels/offshoots/remakes on a Nintendo system. I know nothing about SMT Nocturne. Katamari is in the hands of Namco, who is generally friendlier with Nintendo than with Sony, they only backed Sony because it gave them a larger audience. If Wii outsells PS3, you can bet Namco, Capcom, Konami, Sega and a number of other Nintendo friendly companies will support Nintendo wholeheartedly over PS3. You mentioned Ico twice, but it and Shadow of Colossus are made by a development team that is more concerned with artistic game development than anything else, so it doesn't matter to them what system it's on, as long as it meets their requirements. Star Ocean is made by a division of Square-Enix, so if Wii is getting Final Fantasy & Dragon Quest, there's a good chance they'll get Star Ocean as well. ZoE is an anime property, I'm not sure who it belongs to, but if it's Bandai Namco, well, there's your answer right there. Atelier Iris is made by a very small dev team, who will be more attracted to the cheaper dev costs on the Wii. Published in the US by Nippon Ichi, who are also a fairly small team, who have expressed interest in making games for both 360 & Wii. So that leaves you with Grandia & God of War as being sacrosanct at this point (and I don't remember who made Grandia, so I can't tell you the prospects of it appearing on a Nintende console).
Now, I did enjoy God of War, but I will not be getting God of War 2 unless there are some really significant changes to it. It's a fine game, but it's by no means great. It's like a very dumbed down, bloodier version of Prince of Persia (the new 3d vers
That depends on what you define as good. I can list for you the games I enjoy, with a little description, and you can make your decisions from there. Oh, games generally range from about $20 (Brain Age, Tetris DS) to at most $45 (Metroid Prime: Hunters) new. That's USD, so CAD will probably be another $10 or so on that. Most games will come in at around $30 USD.
Advance Wars: Dual Strike - Totally awesome game. If you've played the previous Advance Wars titles, this is an excellent upgrade. If you haven't, then this game is a must have. It's a Turn Based Strategy game, which I personally love, so your opinion may differ if you're not into that sort of thing. I've also heard the Age of Empires DS game is really good, but don't actually own it yet.
Tetris DS - The king of the puzzle games. This is probably one of the two best installments of Tetris ever made. It does have a few quirks that hardcore players say make it "too easy" (Specifically, the need to 'lock' pieces, which means you can continue spinning them indefinitely while you try to formulate a stratgy). On the other hand, it has 6 different play modes, all of which are fun, great multiplay local or internet. Including Single Card Multiplay (which many DS games have.)
Meteos - Another puzzle game, in a similar vein as Tetris, but probably more resembling Bejeweled (if you've ever played that). Played entirely with the touchscreen, you have falling squares of different colors. You can only make vertical movements, and you're trying to match up 3 or more squares of the same color either horizontally or vertically to 'blast off' groups of blocks. The absolute greatest thing about this is that Meteos takes place across different planets. Each planet has it's own rules, including differen gravity, differnt rocket strengths for vertical vs. horizontal combos, and different colored squares that spawn. This game is great, but you may want to wait, as this game was released before WFC was set up, so it has no internet play. A new version is coming out in the coming months that will likely have new planets, as well as internet play (it's being cobranded by Disney, if that matters to you at all).
Trace Memory (Another Code) - The name is different depending on where you purchase it. Trace Memory in North America, Another Code in Europe. This is an old style adventure game, reminiscent of old text adventures, or the old Lucas Arts game (although with less humor). A warning, this game is very short. As in, 5 or 6 hours of play time max. It makes up for that by being fiendishly clever, though. It really makes some unique use of the DS' features, and is well worth a play through. You may want to get a cheap used version however, since it is so short.
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - I didn't think I would like this game, but damn was I wrong. It seems pretty simple, but actually gets pretty complex as you move forward. The best thing about this game though is the humor. It has some of the best writing of any DS game I've played. If you have any sense of humor at all you can't help but enjoy it. It's a remake of a Japan on GBA game, and has some added features for the DS, including one chapter that makes much better use of the touch screen (although it is used very intelligently in the other chapters).
Metroid Prime: Hunters - First, a warning. If you are looking for an old school Metroid experience, this is not it. This is an FPS first, and a Metroid Shooter second. The control scheme has a steep learning curve, but once you get it, it is incredible. Taken for what it is, a handheld arcade style FPS (more like Quake or Unreal than like Syphon Filter), it is stellar. If you like that type of game you will enjoy MPH.
New Super Mario Bros. - If you like classic Super Mario Bros. (especially SMB3 or SMB World), you'll enjoy this game. If you're just going to blaze through the game, it's pretty short (apparently you can beat it in just 4
You are incorrect about the DS. The DS is not a modified GBA. The DS has two processors, one DS processor, and one GBA processor for backwards compatibility. That second processor can also be used for DS games to offload sound processing from the main CPU. The actual main processor of the DS, however, while it has the same base as the GBA processor, is significantly different. That is part of the reason many developers continue to make GBA games and have not fully transferred development over to the DS yet. Well...one of the reasons.
I stand by your previous statement also. The main problem, of course, is that Microsoft owns FASA Studios, which is currently the only company with the rights to make video games with the Shadowrun name. Same with Crimson Skies. Which is why it's so disappointing when they pull something like this.
I mean, it would only seem reasonable that Microsoft would think, 'You know, the biggest criticism of our Xbox console was that it was nothing but FPS', there just wasn't a big enough variety of games. Hey, we have this great RPG licensce that we own the rights to. Let's make an FPS out of it, and trick the people who like RPGs into buying an FPS. Then they'll have to buy all our other FPS', or be ridiculed by all their friends!'. Cause, you know, it's the only logical path to take.
You know, I hadn't noticed that. I've mostly considered FFX to be the only actual FF game on the PS2. And FFXI is different enough not to be considered iterative, at least.
The 2 FFXIII games (3 if you count the mobile version) is probably a bit much.
I enjoyed the Lone Wolf books also. The world was really nice, and the powers were interesting. If you're still interested in Lone Wolf, an RPG has been published that uses the world and lore of Magnamund. You can purchase it here: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpg/series.php?q sSeries=24. Or it might be available in pdf from Drive Thru RPG.
Nintendo is dead. They're spinning this because they are out of the technology loop. Sony is spending far more money than Nintendo on new technology because they can afford to. Nintendo can not compete and they are now trying to spin it.
And you are wrong. Dead wrong.
Nintendo currently has approx. $6 billion cash on hand. Not yen. American dollars. 6 billion dollars. In cash. That's liquid assets, not investments.
Compare that to about $11 billion for Microsoft. And around $3 billion for Sony (more of Sony's money is tied up in investments).
Also consider this. In over 100 years (116?) Nintendo has had one unprofitable quarter. Not even an unprofitable year, just one quarter where they did not make money. Counting both the GC & GBA, Nintendo has sold 95 million consoles this generation. Compare this to 112 billion consoles sold by Sony (selling only the ps2). Both of Nintendo's consoles sold for less money, and Nintendo sold less than 1/4 as many software units as Sony.
And yet this generation Nintendo has made 4 times the profit of Sony's game division. In fact, Nintendo made almost double the profit of Sony Corp as a whole. That means that Nintendo, who's business is almost exclusively in gaming & merchandising, made more money than Sony Games Division, Sony Movie Division, Sony Computer Division, Sony Hardware Division, Sony Music Division and Sony Media Division (...I'm missing one somewhere, Sony has seven divisions). Now, admittedly, only 3 of the 7 divisions of Sony actually made money, but still, to make double the profit of one of the largest corporations in the world with only two areas of revenue is a feat pretty much unmatched by any other company. Why do you think Microsoft was so eager to get into the video game market? Nintendo has been making money hand over fist since the days of the NES. Even with a system that is considered a comparitive failure (the gamecube) Nintendo is still making more money than it's competition by significant digits.
Nintendo could offer a system 3 times as powerful as the PS3, they could licensce Blu-ray or HD-DVD if they felt like it, they could make it surf the web, play movies, organize your appointments, receive your email, and record TV. All that, and still include the new controller. It would cost about $800, but would blow anything else anyone has to offer out of the water. Nintendo isn't going to do that, though, because it's not a smart move for them from a business standpoint. They're making a weaker system not because they lack the money (they have more liquid assets than Microsoft lost making Xbox a success), but because from a business standpoint, they stand to make more profit this way.
The PSP vs. DS fight is worth looking at for more than one reason. Not just because the DS is outselling the PSP by about 6 to 1 worldwide atm (most of that is Japan, a little Europe, they're dead even in the US). Sony is not losing money on the PSP, every unit sold makes them money. Nintendo is not losing money on the DS, every unit sold makes them money. But Nintendo has a far, far higher attachment rate (games sold per consoles in the wild) than Sony in the handheld space. Also, the best selling Nintendo games are developed and published by Nintendo. Games like Brain Training are about the closest you can get to pure profit. The hardware doesn't matter, Nintendo's business strategy is just flat out better, and they are making the kind of money most company executives have wet dreams about.
Now, compare the Wii to the PS3. This is in no way confirmed, but there is a very good chance that Sony will actually be losing money on each PS3 sold. That means the PS3 will be the first console Sony has ever lost money on the sale of. This means that Sony absoluted must dominate the console market, or they stand to repeat Microsoft's feat of losing money. Nintendo, on the other hand, can sell to the same 20 million customers they already have, and as long as they keep a steady stream of games, they still beat their competition in profit.
Don't ever make the mistake of assuming Nintendo is not doing something because of money. They have plenty to spare.
How will numbers help? According to the numbers, the original Xbox was about twice as powerful as the Gamecube. Instead of the 10% more powerful it actually proved to be in practice.
The numbers won't tell you anything. The primary reason the 360 is more powerful than the Xbox has nothing to do with how fast it's processors clock or how much memory it has. It has to do with the fact that the Xbox was built like an all purpose pc, and the 360 is built like a dedicated games console. Even if the 360 had a single core procssor at the same clockspeed and the same amount of RAM as the Xbox, it would still be heads and shoulders above the original Xbox in performance.
Numbers at best tell you half the story. And you'll never hear numbers from Nintendo. At best you'll hear numbers after the system is released and enthusiasts take it apart and clock everything for themselves.
Personally, if someone from ATI says, 'We're building a better GPU than the one that was in there for the final product', which is what I got from the summary, then I'm inclined to believe there will be at least some improvement. The only question is: how much?
Can you show me posts where multiple people show they only ever bought one ps2, and it's always worked? You're only the second person I've ever met/heard of/talked to who's never had to replace their ps2. For me, that makes you 2 people out of about 275. Admittedly, that's othing considering over 100 million ps2 sold, but how disappointing a system is is determined by what the one person sees.
Slashdot Mirror
So yes, you can buy a ps3 and a wii, or a ps3 and a 360. Personally, I'm fairly certain that within 3 years, I'll own all 3. However, most people aren't like you, and it's the majority, not the minority you fall into, that determines which console is most successful. And the most successful console gets the most games. So while articles like this may not influence your decision, it's clearly telling on what the majority will be looking at when they make their buying decisions this holiday season. And if the majority thinks the ps3 is not worth the price, you may find in a year or two that that ps3 you paid a premium for isn't all that much fun anymore.
All the complaining and bitching about the PS3 is because people want a PS3, but they also want to be able to pay their mortgage. When given a choice between a gaming machine, and shelter, electricity, water & food, one side of that scale is going to weigh more heavily than the other.
I, personally, am a major Nintendo fan, but I still want a PS3. However, I just have no way of justifying the necessary expenditure.
To be fair, I've also never paid more than $80 for a DVD burner. I was perfectly willing to wait for the price to decrease. I'll do the same for the PS3, assuming it actually ends up worth buying.
It's true that underground lines require less maintenance. A lot less maintenance. If we changed all our lines from overhead to underground, NES would have to layoff 4/5 of their maintenance team. Rather than realizing that it would take years to convert every powerline in Nashville from overhead to underground so they'd have excellent job security until they retired, they have decided not to convert to underground lines. I wouldn't be surprised if this is true in other areas, but I know that's the deal here. So everytime there's a thunderstorm the power goes out, and the cable goes out with it, cause the cable lines follow the powerlines.
Have you ever played an RTS on a pc? They have a cursor also. When the cursor hits the edge of the screen, the screen moves to follow the cursor. Using the Wiimote as a cursor doesn't stop you from using it as camera control.
The first is the idea that the Wii is 'less powerful' than the 360 and the PS3. That's an interesting statement, and from certain perspectives, it is true. From a graphical standpoint it will certainly be less powerful. Which is something that didn't seem to affect the PS2 one way or the other. However, much like the GC, it is a very gameplay oriented machine. There are a number of tweaks to the Wii that will improve it's performance with a number of critical gameplay features, such as AI and physics. Certainly it will never be able to produce as many onscreen models with as nice textures as the 360 or PS3, but it will do quite impressive things with what it does have.
Next, the primary reason the controller is a big draw is because it will make games possible that simply are not possible on the other consoles. These games will be exclusive to the Wii. All games made by Nintendo will also be exclusive to the Wii. That leaves 3rd party games. If you've been reading developer comments, the general trend is less and less exclusive games. More 3rd parties are saying they'll have to release a game for all consoles just to continue making a profit. Any game that can be done on the PS3 or 360 can be done on the Wii, just graphically less intense. So if you get a Wii, you'll have access to more exclusive games than you will on any other platform. Certainly there will be exclusive games for 360 & PS3. PS3 has a lot of games that they make in-house. Most pc game makers will only port their games to 360 becaue it's a fairly quick, easy port job, with a familiar (XNA) environment. Start looking at what games are developed by 1st and 2nd parties, and base your decision on that. 3rd party offerings are going to start becoming less and less exclusive over time.
As far as copying the controller, it's not as easy as you think. The PS3 controller is about as close as anyone can come without violating Nintendo patents. They'll have to find a way around those patents (which means developing new technology, instead of leveraging existing technology as Nintendo has) before they can copy the controller. And even if they do get it within one year, they'll have to prove that their solution is comparable to the Wii controller, or no one will buy it. The only peripheral that has ever caught on was the Dual Shock controller for the PS1. No peripheral before or since has caught on with that level of support, and there was a reason for it. It could also play every single game already out for the system. It was an entirely optional upgrade. Anything that properly emulated the Wii controller would not necessarily work for games already out, meaning less people would buy it, and less developers would utilize it. In fact, if you remember, on the PS1, even after the dual shock was released, the analog control was still optional in all but a very few games.
It still comes down to the games. Wii will have Nintendo's games, which no one else will have, and can at best imitate. It will have games designed exclusively to utilize the controller. It will have a varied mix of casual and hardcore titles. It will have all of the major crossplatform 3rd party titles, often with added functionality for the Wiimote. It probably won't have any version of GTA or God of War. It all depends on what you base your decisions on.
If you've ever been in a sword fight, you know they don't tend to last very long. Long drawn out wars in the middle ages were done by people with lots of training, and who were pretty high on adrenaline because they were in danger of their lives.
I have no doubt an adequate sword fighting game could be made, but it's not suitable for Zelda, because Zelda is 100 hours of gameplay, with a lot of sword fighting involved.
And actual game using the Wiimote as a sword fighting mechanic would have to be primarily focused on that, and each fight would only be about as long as a fight in your average fighting game (Soul Calibur, Street Fighter), with the ability to take a small break between fights to rest. A 10-minute fight, with a 1-minute break, would allow an average gamer to probably work their way through 20 or 30 fights in one sitting before they get too tired to fight anymore.
It also depends a lot on what type of fighting style you're using. A fencer uses very small movements, but tends to have longer fights. Those fights would not be very tiring at all. Using Iajutsu would require much more intense movements, but such a fight would be over within seconds (if you're any good). Using any standard samurai, ninja or knight fighting style, you would tend to see much larger movements, and those would definitely be the most tiring. Also to be noted, most fencing attacks (except lunges) are done using only the wrists as well. And the Wiimote is substantially lighter than a Rapier. By a lot. I mean, a whole lot, and don't even get me started on people fencing with Sabres.
As far as the pointing, it's better than a mouse because it not only has height and width, it also has depth. Not only can you point at things to the right, left, top and bottom but you can also point at things farther in. There are a lot of ideas that can be borne of such possibilities. Maybe between the Wiimote and Vista's 3D GUI, 3D mice will become popular.
As for people who 'prefer' the classic controller, most of that preference comes from having used it for years. There is essentially no difference between the Wiimote-Nunchuk combo and a classic controller, except that you can move both hands independently of each other (and, of course, certain difference in where buttons and such are located). I'm not sure what you mean about ergonomics, but both the nunchuk and Wiimote are designed to be very comfortable. However, the Wii does have a classic controller that can be used which is (annoyingly enough) set up almost exactly like a dual shock controller, only shaped differently.
No one has said much about the long term effects, but from what I know of RSI's, the Wiimote should not be a problem as long as you aren't doing the exact same movement repeatedly. RSI's are a result of repeating a single movement, varied movements (such as those made when performing different hits in tennis) are generally less of a problem (unless you do it for several hours a day, day after day, then it can become an issue, but then, the movements made with a standard controller present the same issue, as does using a keyboard).
As for your question in a later comment about shifting your entire body during a game, that is a concern. That may be what the 'Home' button on the Wiimote is for, but no one actually knows for sure.
First, the point of the controller is not to improve gameplay. It's to make control more transparent so that gameplay is the focus, not the controller.
Second, like a touch screen, it allows for gameplay mechanics that otherwise would not be possible.
Yes, I'm being a rampant fanboy, but I think the Wii deserves it. I honestly have not been this excited about what is essentially a way of distracting myself in my entire life. I know the Wii controller is not the best possible control for every type of game, but then, neither is an analog joystick, or a Dpad. The difference is, the Wii (much like the DS) offers all of these options. The old, and the new. Sure, you lose a few buttons, but how many console games can you think of that honestly utilize all 8 buttons easily reachable on a standard controller for anything worthwhile? Other than fighting games, I can only think of a few, and if you're going to abstract control anyway, replacing a button press with a gesture (or a combination of a button press and a gesture) is equally effective.
An abstract control device does nothing to focus you on the game, because it is an abstract. That means that for every action you wish to perform in game, you have an abstract layer it has to pass through before you get the result you want. A direct control device lacks that abstract layer, and therefore requires one less neural pathway to perform. It's the difference between thinking, "I want to attack, so I press A," and thinking, "I want to attack, so I attack." That's a matter of biology.
Not that that means the Wiimote will be any different, mind you. It is still very much an abstract device, just as a mouse and keyboard are. However, in some cases (Wii Sports being the showcase) it is a very direct device. You don't have to think about both what you want to do, and what you need to accomplish to do it, you just think about what you want to do. Abstract control cannot possibly be more immersive than direct control.
And believe me, there is a very, very steep learning curve to using a standard controller. Going from an FPS to a Platformer, it takes the average person from several minutes to a half hour to completely switch gears between two very different control schemes.
That wasn't a statistic, it was at best a rough guess. I thought it was hyperbolic enough to be obviously made up.
I will never, ever, in my life, play Golf again. Not Ever. I am 100% certain of this fact, and nothing short of a guaranteed $1 million dollars could even hope to sway me.
On the other hand, I play golf arcade games all the time with my friends. I'm not entirely sure why I enjoy them, I just do. It could be the lack of sunlight. Not having to walk a quarter mile between holes. Or just because actual golf, when compared to arcade golf, is just downright boring.
I do not play Guitar, but I have friends who do play Guitar and they love Guitar Hero. I can only assume the reason for that is, while yes, you can play any of those songs on a regular guitar, you don't get the benefit of having an audience clap along with you and cheer for you unless you're already a pretty big name. Out of every 1 million people who learn to play guitar well, maybe 10 will make in in a band that goes anywhere. Those 10 guys will get the adulations of thousands or millions of people. The rest of us just get the satisfaction of being able to play the song.
In Guitar Hero, we get the satisfaction of being able to play the song, and at least the simulation of adoring fans. That, I think, is clearly the difference between the two.
One other thing. While I do enjoy Guitar Hero, I just don't think I will ever learn to play the guitar. You see, I have hobbies and interests. Lots of them. Already. Adding guitar playing to that list will take time away from my existing hobbies. As playing video games is one of those hobbies, playing Guitar Hero did not take time away from an existing hobby, it fit comfortably within it. Now, I can play 30 mins of Guitar Hero, then move on to something else, or not play for a few weeks if other hobbies intervene. If I were to learn to play Guitar, I'd have to dedicate a significant amount of time to it, with consistency, so I'd be able to maintain some skill.
The final estimation, however, is that playing a guitar has no built in punishment/reward system. In Guitar Hero, you have an exact measurement of how well you did. Playing a regular guitar in your room, you only have your own musical talent to tell how well you did, and some people are tone deaf. Those people can still play Guitar Hero by matching up colors, whereas they'd never be able to really play an actual guitar. More importantly, the only people who will laugh at you when you're playing Guitar Hero are your friends (and an entirely fake, and therefore non-threatening, audience). Playing in front of a crowd at a venue and being laughed at by 50+ total strangers is a hell of a lot more stressful.
I thought I was the only one who still played the Hammered Dulcimer. I would so totally buy that game. Maybe we cold get more Dulcimerists.
Final Fantasy VII, as a game, absolutely pales in comparison to it's predecessors. I have played and beaten FFVII twice. It was okay. I have played Chrono Trigger, FFVI, FFIV & FFV more times than I can count. I play through Chrono Trigger once every other year because it's just that good. I haven't played FFVII, FFVIII or FFIX since I got a PS2.
Mario 64, on the other hand, was a significant departure and improvement over its predecessors. I would be hard put to say it's a better game, because it's just so damn different. I think I actually like SMB3 more. That doesn't change the fact that Mario 64 still remains one of the most impressive video game achievements of all time.
Of course, this is my personal opinions. In my personal experience, no game has impressed me graphically since Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. That game was an absolute visual experience I have never forgotten. Though games have visibly gotten better, they're no longer impressive. Everything after that has just sort of been expected.
Hmmm, I was not aware of that. But it could just be because Nintendo plans to continue offering backwards compatibility & the virtual console on future machines, and code that uses their API will be easier to emulate on a new hardware architecture than code that uses unique hardware tweaks. I still think it's a good idea either way. As long as their API is decent, which I've heard it's much improved over the original Gamecube API.
That chart shows sales of the PS2 ranging from 11/01 to 05/06. It only lists sales for the DS ranging from 11/04 to 05/06. So, the PS2 has a 3 year lead. While we're at it, this shows only American sales, not sales for the rest of the world. Also, it appears to be lacking sales figures for 3 months for the DS.
I took the liberty of doing some calculations and comparisons. In the 14 months listed on the chart (from 11/04 to 12/05 when they list the total) the DS has a total of 3,817,883 units sold (this is remembering that they're missing 3 whole months of sales data for some reason).
I calculated the 1st 14 months of PS2 sales (11/01 to 12/02, with no missing sales data) and came up with a total of 11,464,172. That means the DS has sold at least 33.3% as well as the PS2 in the US. If the Wii were to sell 4 times as many units as the DS, it would then be selling 133.2% as well as the PS2.
Now, this is remembering 2 facts. The first, we're missing 3 whole months of sales data for the DS (although that's admittedly 02/05-04/05 when it's likely the DS didn't sell much in the US). The second, this is only US sales data. The DS is outselling the PSP by anywhere from 150% to 200% in Europe. The DS is also outselling the PSP by anywhere from 300% to 600% in Japan (with the DS Lite routinely selling more units than every other console, portable or otherwise, combined each week).
Now, your argument that the home console & handheld console markets are entirely separate is valid, and it's impossible to predict success based on the sells of one compared to the other, but the point people are trying to remake is: Nintendo's business strategy has altered significantly from last generation. The DS is the only thing we have to go on to consider how well this business strategy will work. In comparison, the PSP has a very similar business strategy to that being utitilized by the GC, PS2, PS3, Xbox & 360, and in most of the world, it's getting slaughtered. What this means is that Nintendo appears to have a superior business model, and if they can adequately represent that business model in the home console market (meaning the Wii meets or exceeds the expectations that exist for it), the only history we have to compare shows us that it will outsell anything that has ever been released in the gaming market.
So, while it might turn out to be wrong, and the Wii may be a horrible, horrible flop, I think it's still a pretty fair prediction that the Wii will 'win' this console cycle.
I would also like to add that saying "Wii will win" makes me feel like a five year old girl with a speech impediment. God do I hate alliteration.
An excellent response, but you did make one mistake. Several of the games demoed at E3 by Sony were running at 1080p. So you will see some 1080p games (like Gran Turismo...whenever it releases). Assuming you actually have a tv that supports it, of course.
And even though I was only a poor college student at the time, I clearly recall owning over 20 n64 games (far more than I owned on the PS1) and enjoying every single one of them. I also rented over 10 games that brought great joy to my life. (To compare, I own about 60 PS2 games, about 5 of which I regret buying. But, to be fair, about 40 of those games are RPG or Strategy games.)
Windwaker was fun. I don't remember if I ever died playing it, I do remember it wasn't stupidly frustrating, if that's what you mean. There was a long stretch near the end that was disappointing, but overall a good game.
What was wrong with the original GBA? I quite enjoyed the original GBA, and still have it. I never picked up an SP, because it never made a difference to me. Now, I do think the DS Lite is better than the DS, but I have a few friends who prefer the original DS simply because it's larger. That's more a matter of preference than failure. In fact, people are still buying the original GBA, so obviously some people prefer it.
And I don't know what you're talking about as far as the GC controller. It is, flat out, the best controller I had ever held until I got ahold of the new 360 controller, which is basically the same controller with a few key upgrades. I also prefer the heightened sensitivity of the Nintendo style analog thumbstick over the PS2 style, or the horribly crappy, inaccurate original Xbox analog. So that wasn't so much a failure as you being strange. The controller worked perfectly in SSBM, I never had a second of trouble from it.
Nintendo has never let me down. I own more PS2 games than I do GC games (I only own about 12 Xbox games), yet I can guarantee you I've spent more time playing my GC than I have my PS2 hands down. Fewer games, but with much, much better replayability. Even the ports are generally better because the GC controller is better, but, of course, that's a personal preference.
And I'm sorry, but every game you've just listed there? All of them except God of War is 3rd party. Xenosaga, Digital Devil Saga, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Kingdom Hearts, Dragon Quest, and Devil May Cry all either have been, or plan to have, sequels/offshoots/remakes on a Nintendo system. I know nothing about SMT Nocturne. Katamari is in the hands of Namco, who is generally friendlier with Nintendo than with Sony, they only backed Sony because it gave them a larger audience. If Wii outsells PS3, you can bet Namco, Capcom, Konami, Sega and a number of other Nintendo friendly companies will support Nintendo wholeheartedly over PS3. You mentioned Ico twice, but it and Shadow of Colossus are made by a development team that is more concerned with artistic game development than anything else, so it doesn't matter to them what system it's on, as long as it meets their requirements. Star Ocean is made by a division of Square-Enix, so if Wii is getting Final Fantasy & Dragon Quest, there's a good chance they'll get Star Ocean as well. ZoE is an anime property, I'm not sure who it belongs to, but if it's Bandai Namco, well, there's your answer right there. Atelier Iris is made by a very small dev team, who will be more attracted to the cheaper dev costs on the Wii. Published in the US by Nippon Ichi, who are also a fairly small team, who have expressed interest in making games for both 360 & Wii. So that leaves you with Grandia & God of War as being sacrosanct at this point (and I don't remember who made Grandia, so I can't tell you the prospects of it appearing on a Nintende console).
Now, I did enjoy God of War, but I will not be getting God of War 2 unless there are some really significant changes to it. It's a fine game, but it's by no means great. It's like a very dumbed down, bloodier version of Prince of Persia (the new 3d vers
Advance Wars: Dual Strike - Totally awesome game. If you've played the previous Advance Wars titles, this is an excellent upgrade. If you haven't, then this game is a must have. It's a Turn Based Strategy game, which I personally love, so your opinion may differ if you're not into that sort of thing. I've also heard the Age of Empires DS game is really good, but don't actually own it yet.
Tetris DS - The king of the puzzle games. This is probably one of the two best installments of Tetris ever made. It does have a few quirks that hardcore players say make it "too easy" (Specifically, the need to 'lock' pieces, which means you can continue spinning them indefinitely while you try to formulate a stratgy). On the other hand, it has 6 different play modes, all of which are fun, great multiplay local or internet. Including Single Card Multiplay (which many DS games have.)
Meteos - Another puzzle game, in a similar vein as Tetris, but probably more resembling Bejeweled (if you've ever played that). Played entirely with the touchscreen, you have falling squares of different colors. You can only make vertical movements, and you're trying to match up 3 or more squares of the same color either horizontally or vertically to 'blast off' groups of blocks. The absolute greatest thing about this is that Meteos takes place across different planets. Each planet has it's own rules, including differen gravity, differnt rocket strengths for vertical vs. horizontal combos, and different colored squares that spawn. This game is great, but you may want to wait, as this game was released before WFC was set up, so it has no internet play. A new version is coming out in the coming months that will likely have new planets, as well as internet play (it's being cobranded by Disney, if that matters to you at all).
Trace Memory (Another Code) - The name is different depending on where you purchase it. Trace Memory in North America, Another Code in Europe. This is an old style adventure game, reminiscent of old text adventures, or the old Lucas Arts game (although with less humor). A warning, this game is very short. As in, 5 or 6 hours of play time max. It makes up for that by being fiendishly clever, though. It really makes some unique use of the DS' features, and is well worth a play through. You may want to get a cheap used version however, since it is so short.
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - I didn't think I would like this game, but damn was I wrong. It seems pretty simple, but actually gets pretty complex as you move forward. The best thing about this game though is the humor. It has some of the best writing of any DS game I've played. If you have any sense of humor at all you can't help but enjoy it. It's a remake of a Japan on GBA game, and has some added features for the DS, including one chapter that makes much better use of the touch screen (although it is used very intelligently in the other chapters).
Metroid Prime: Hunters - First, a warning. If you are looking for an old school Metroid experience, this is not it. This is an FPS first, and a Metroid Shooter second. The control scheme has a steep learning curve, but once you get it, it is incredible. Taken for what it is, a handheld arcade style FPS (more like Quake or Unreal than like Syphon Filter), it is stellar. If you like that type of game you will enjoy MPH.
New Super Mario Bros. - If you like classic Super Mario Bros. (especially SMB3 or SMB World), you'll enjoy this game. If you're just going to blaze through the game, it's pretty short (apparently you can beat it in just 4
You are incorrect about the DS. The DS is not a modified GBA. The DS has two processors, one DS processor, and one GBA processor for backwards compatibility. That second processor can also be used for DS games to offload sound processing from the main CPU. The actual main processor of the DS, however, while it has the same base as the GBA processor, is significantly different. That is part of the reason many developers continue to make GBA games and have not fully transferred development over to the DS yet. Well...one of the reasons.
I mean, it would only seem reasonable that Microsoft would think, 'You know, the biggest criticism of our Xbox console was that it was nothing but FPS', there just wasn't a big enough variety of games. Hey, we have this great RPG licensce that we own the rights to. Let's make an FPS out of it, and trick the people who like RPGs into buying an FPS. Then they'll have to buy all our other FPS', or be ridiculed by all their friends!'. Cause, you know, it's the only logical path to take.
The 2 FFXIII games (3 if you count the mobile version) is probably a bit much.
I enjoyed the Lone Wolf books also. The world was really nice, and the powers were interesting. If you're still interested in Lone Wolf, an RPG has been published that uses the world and lore of Magnamund. You can purchase it here: http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpg/series.php?q sSeries=24. Or it might be available in pdf from Drive Thru RPG.
And you are wrong. Dead wrong.
Nintendo currently has approx. $6 billion cash on hand. Not yen. American dollars. 6 billion dollars. In cash. That's liquid assets, not investments.
Compare that to about $11 billion for Microsoft. And around $3 billion for Sony (more of Sony's money is tied up in investments).
Also consider this. In over 100 years (116?) Nintendo has had one unprofitable quarter. Not even an unprofitable year, just one quarter where they did not make money. Counting both the GC & GBA, Nintendo has sold 95 million consoles this generation. Compare this to 112 billion consoles sold by Sony (selling only the ps2). Both of Nintendo's consoles sold for less money, and Nintendo sold less than 1/4 as many software units as Sony.
And yet this generation Nintendo has made 4 times the profit of Sony's game division. In fact, Nintendo made almost double the profit of Sony Corp as a whole. That means that Nintendo, who's business is almost exclusively in gaming & merchandising, made more money than Sony Games Division, Sony Movie Division, Sony Computer Division, Sony Hardware Division, Sony Music Division and Sony Media Division (...I'm missing one somewhere, Sony has seven divisions). Now, admittedly, only 3 of the 7 divisions of Sony actually made money, but still, to make double the profit of one of the largest corporations in the world with only two areas of revenue is a feat pretty much unmatched by any other company. Why do you think Microsoft was so eager to get into the video game market? Nintendo has been making money hand over fist since the days of the NES. Even with a system that is considered a comparitive failure (the gamecube) Nintendo is still making more money than it's competition by significant digits.
Nintendo could offer a system 3 times as powerful as the PS3, they could licensce Blu-ray or HD-DVD if they felt like it, they could make it surf the web, play movies, organize your appointments, receive your email, and record TV. All that, and still include the new controller. It would cost about $800, but would blow anything else anyone has to offer out of the water. Nintendo isn't going to do that, though, because it's not a smart move for them from a business standpoint. They're making a weaker system not because they lack the money (they have more liquid assets than Microsoft lost making Xbox a success), but because from a business standpoint, they stand to make more profit this way.
The PSP vs. DS fight is worth looking at for more than one reason. Not just because the DS is outselling the PSP by about 6 to 1 worldwide atm (most of that is Japan, a little Europe, they're dead even in the US). Sony is not losing money on the PSP, every unit sold makes them money. Nintendo is not losing money on the DS, every unit sold makes them money. But Nintendo has a far, far higher attachment rate (games sold per consoles in the wild) than Sony in the handheld space. Also, the best selling Nintendo games are developed and published by Nintendo. Games like Brain Training are about the closest you can get to pure profit. The hardware doesn't matter, Nintendo's business strategy is just flat out better, and they are making the kind of money most company executives have wet dreams about.
Now, compare the Wii to the PS3. This is in no way confirmed, but there is a very good chance that Sony will actually be losing money on each PS3 sold. That means the PS3 will be the first console Sony has ever lost money on the sale of. This means that Sony absoluted must dominate the console market, or they stand to repeat Microsoft's feat of losing money. Nintendo, on the other hand, can sell to the same 20 million customers they already have, and as long as they keep a steady stream of games, they still beat their competition in profit.
Don't ever make the mistake of assuming Nintendo is not doing something because of money. They have plenty to spare.
The numbers won't tell you anything. The primary reason the 360 is more powerful than the Xbox has nothing to do with how fast it's processors clock or how much memory it has. It has to do with the fact that the Xbox was built like an all purpose pc, and the 360 is built like a dedicated games console. Even if the 360 had a single core procssor at the same clockspeed and the same amount of RAM as the Xbox, it would still be heads and shoulders above the original Xbox in performance.
Numbers at best tell you half the story. And you'll never hear numbers from Nintendo. At best you'll hear numbers after the system is released and enthusiasts take it apart and clock everything for themselves.
Personally, if someone from ATI says, 'We're building a better GPU than the one that was in there for the final product', which is what I got from the summary, then I'm inclined to believe there will be at least some improvement. The only question is: how much?
Can you show me posts where multiple people show they only ever bought one ps2, and it's always worked? You're only the second person I've ever met/heard of/talked to who's never had to replace their ps2. For me, that makes you 2 people out of about 275. Admittedly, that's othing considering over 100 million ps2 sold, but how disappointing a system is is determined by what the one person sees.