On the Wii the same is happening, it gets a Farcry, it gets a PrinceOfPersia, some ResidentEvil remake/collection/whatever and other stuff, all of which isn't new, but just remakes, recreations or other ways to cash in on a already successful franchise. The new mature franchises are created elsewhere on other consoles.
Manhunt 2 is coming to the Wii, and hasn't been announced for the other systems yet.
The problem isn't that Nintendo won't make money, they will, they already do. The problem is that the Wiis selection of games will be hugely limited. Its a problem the gamers will have, not one of Nintendo, which of course might explain Nintendos lack of interest in securing third parties...
Watching the Nintendo keynotes from the first announcement of the "Revolution", you'll see a huge emphasis by Nintendo on third parties. They've gone out of their way to make amends to developers, especially Capcom and Square. This is why we had Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles and Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube.
While Nintendo has and can survive on first party titles alone, third party titles are paramount in establishing a hefty marketshare. Gamers gravitate toward the console with the most games, and a larger install base means more potential first party purchases. Nintendo may have made mountains of cash with both the N64 and the Gamecube, but a shrinking install base is not a maintainable business.
I think you're right. It's possible that the Wii and 360 fanboys here need not be as shrill (and we know they're here, the fear of being modded down for attacking the Wii or defending the PS3 is not unfounded). It's even possible that the arguments for those systems are simple and obvious enough that the fanboys can state them without giving away their nature. In any case, I don't think we can complain too much that two out of three camps aren't whining incessantly.
I'd like to personally thank you for posting, especially as yourself and not AC.
I think you're on the mark concerning the Wii and the hardcore crowd. For many people the Wii is perfectly accurate and responsive, but for many hardcore players it won't be. Even the smallest loss of response time or accuracy can be frustrating (I completely stopped playing Halo 2 on Xbox Live because at 10 sensitivity you were never firing where you were pointing) and there is a very small amount of lag associated with the Wii remote.
This doensn't mean they won't play it or buy it, I've had and enjoyed one since launch. But it also means they'll want a system or games with precision. I also own an Xbox 360, and will likely eventually own a PS3 (Whenever they get some games worth the console's price). Hardcore gamers will likely buy the Wii, but not just the Wii. That's an insight that doesn't often get brought up, forgotten in the factional strife. It's great someone like you did.
I wasn't asserting that Nintendo was unhurt until late in the Gamecube's lifecycle, but rather that there wasn't significant third party support until then.
Nintendo wasn't thriving in terms of market share, but they were still more profitable than Sony's game divisions despite losing their throne. They could have been incredibly rich if they'd kept the third parties, and thus the market share, but they were weren't sinking without them.
It's a question on many people's minds if Sony can survive the same way Nintendo did. Nintendo is literally a monster of first party developers, with many first party titles (though not all AAA) raking in cash. Sony has some first party developers, but nowhere near the production of Nintendo. Adding to the situation that PS3s are sold at a loss, it's entirely possible that were Sony to fall into the same position Nintendo held for the past two generations they might be forced to fold.
It's speculation, and I don't think it will happen, but it's a concern that is on the minds of many.
I'd actually make a distinction here. There are fans and fanboys.
A fan has an obvious bias, but this isn't something that distorts reality in any truly appreciable way. There may be facts they are unaware of, but they aren't actively in denial of circumstances or conciously spinning arguments to their benefit. They simply like one console more than others, and bring that to the table.
A fanboy goes beyond bias. They actively select facts and creat distortions to support their system. They are unable to properly make viable arguments for their console or against others without resorting to insults, hearsay, and utter stupidity. They almost always post AC.
There are 360/Wii Fanboys, but they don't show up here too often. It isn't necessary because the majority of people here are at worst neutral about the 360 or the Wii. Most things posted about either of those two consoles is positive, and anything negative is an object of discussion.
There are, sadly, a lot of Sony Fanboys. There seems to be a crack team of FUDers running amuck in any article relevant to the console wars. They are ridiculed, and only make the situation worse for Sony.
Quite simply, the only solution to the problem is not to criticize the fanboys, but for people with dissenting view and opinions to screw karma and post (intelligently) with their name. You are a target for the Wii/360 fanboys who lurk more than post, but you are also depriving us of valid insight and opinion if you don't.
So post your dissenting views. At least one person here will appreciate it.
Nintendo being fueled by 1st party titles saved them, not hurt them.
1st party titles have always made more money for the company producing them than licensed third parties, at least directly. What third party titles accomplish is an increased player base. More games means more systems sold means a bigger market for lucrative first party titles.
Nintendo was hurt by not having significant third party support until late in the Gamecube's lifespan. The 1st party exlusives are the only thing that kept them afloat, albeit "afloat" in this case is "ridiculously profitable".
The difference betweena 720p or 1080i HDTV and a 1080p one is at least $1000, usually more. My 1080i set was ~$1700 including a stand, but would have cost me ~$2900 for the 1080p model without a stand.
I asked to be shown a 1080i set versus a 1080p set, and though each had a video feed native to its resolution I wasn't able to see enough of a difference to warrant spending nearly twice as much.
720p and 1080i are beautiful. I'm sure people with the eyes of a hawk will be able to see stark differences between those resolutions and 1080p, but I don't.
It is important to note I was looking at movies/video feeds rather than video games. Something with more obvious pixels might make the difference a little less obscure.
The 12 steps really seem more along the lines of, "12 steps to managing your e-mail more efficiently" rather than breaking any habits. At the same time, they don't increase e-mail checking efficiency. In fact, half of them don't even seem to be steps.
However, there's a deep question here. Who the heck includes multiple subjects in one e-mail? Even with spambots I've never seen "Re: The backyard/fiscal policy".
All I know is that after Mega Man X, I stopped playing Mega Man games. X was awesome, but something about the sequels lost me. Legends was interesting but ultimately came down to endlessly strafing every boss and enemy in the game. I honestly can't say anything about the handheld games.
Call me old fashioned, but I really just want an old style Mega Man game with 8 Robot masters.
You can argue that breaking up Clover was not bad, as many of its recent games were not received as well as they might have been. However, there is room to be skeptical about the practice in general.
The perception is, and is sometimes true, that teams with great synergy are broken up and divided amongst other groups by the callous processes of HR. Whether or not this is standard practice is not the issue, whether or not this is good practice is.
There's nothing wrong with the Japanese model of signing up with the company rather than for a position. However, there is something wrong with the unjustified cannibalization of programming teams.
This is a very well articulated and thought out response. Your points stand very well, such that I could only resort to minor quibbling were I to make an attempt to dissect them.
I will say that I did think the Wii would do very well, but like everyone who did I was surprised it has done as well as it has. It is incredible, and I rib on my friends that old fogeys are getting their Wiis first while they make excuses.
I will also say that my greatest concern is that we will see DSLite-esque shortages for some time yet. Nintendo is still unable to produce enough of their handheld to meet demand, particularly in Japan. My sincere hope is that the situation improves for both the Wii and the DS before long.
However being sold out is a fantastic thing from the "selling far more units than we predicted, and based production schedules on" point of view. Thus I'm sure their concern is tempered by a kind of giddiness that comes from making money hand over fist beyond expectations.
I think on the balance Nintendo is the kind of conservative company who is more interested in aquiring real money than the hypothetical loss of potential money. Obviously, though, they will want to fix the shortage if they can because they'd obviously like even more money. I think it's rather funny that just like in the vgcats comic they made a lot of consoles, only it still wasn't enough to meet demand.
This is an interesting perspective. While I think my point stands to some extent, this is invaluable insight into the "Why?" behind the extreme difficulty in getting Wiis, and into Nintendo itself.
I agree with you. I stated in my OP that "Demand doesn't magically vanish once it is met." As you noted, this isn't an artificial cap being placed to attempt to increase demand. This is simply demand outstripping supply.
My argument is that being unable to meet demand isn't good. Having that demand is, but it would be much better for Nintendo if they could supply our ravenous Wii craving.
I'll grant that my wording wasn't as precise as it should have been, but don't misconstrue my point.
I'm not claiming that selling well is a bad thing, I'm claiming that failing to meet demand is. Selling well at X quantity per Y time is excellent. However, when you have the potential to sell 2X or 3X in the same Y time it is difficult to argue that being unable to supply more than X is a good thing.
If Nintendo were selling twice as many Wiis a month as now, but also had systems on shelves, it obviously wouldn't mean that excitement was dying. Selling out doesn't intrinsically show that there is excitement or incredible demand. How much product is being sold does. Refer again to the comic I referenced in my OP.
Yeah, I'm sure Nintento execs are crying themselves to sleep at night about how bad things are going as compared to, say, Sony who has no problems meeting demand.
They may not be crying themselves to sleep, but I'm sure they'd be even happier if they could be selling more Wiis. As I stated before, the demand for Wiis is independant of the supply, and the demand is high. Failing to meet that demand simply means delayed and lost sales for Nintendo, something they don't want.
I'm sure they're absolutely ecstatic about the demand.
Supply isn't free, or even cheap. Bringing new manufacturing capacity online takes time and investment. Making that investment when it may only be needed to satisfy short-term demand isn't necessarily a wise business move. In this case, who knows. But I'm pretty sure that Nintendo, who knows the actual costs involved, has a better idea than you.
From the very launch of the DSLite in Japan it has been sold out, as difficult to get as Wiis have been here. This is hardly a short-term demand issue at this point. I'll grant that Nintendo potentially has better resources than I do to evaluate the demand for their systems and the risks involved in ramping up production, but at face value having multiple products which disappear from shelves within minutes of being restocked strikes me as a supply significantly below demand.
The last report I read had the Wii at 7% availability in America. I do not know how this compares to the PS2 or Xbox 360, but it strikes me as very low. 93% of the country is unable to keep the system in stock. My perceptions are my own, and I am not an industry expert, but I think Nintendo could benefit from increased production.
I'll end stating that's it's a good thing to be able to meet demand, whether you're Sony or Nintendo. If Sony is meeting demand, I do not think it is honest to fault them for it. If demand for the PS3 is low that is surely a grave point of concern, but a separate point from their ability to meet demand. You could argue that Sony should not receive applause for meeting low expectations. However, I don't think it's possible to argue honestly that Sony should receive derision for meeting demand.
In conclusion, I enjoyed reading your response. I'm sorry my own wasn't as terse and to the point as yours. I have a bad habit of being long winded.
Thus was relatively low in level. I would open with Concussive Shot, followed by Arcane and then Serpent Sting. However, Arcane Shot's cooldown wouldn't return before the enemy came into my dead zone. I figured out completely by accident that starting with Arcane and following with concussive allowed me to get another Arcane in before the enemy reached me.
Later, Aimed Shot replaced the initial Arcane, but I still was surprised by my discovery as insignificant as it was.
The inability to put units on shelves is just that. A concert being sold out is a good thing, but a console being sold out is not.
Nintendo stands to make much more money meeting demand, both for the Wii and the DS. Demand doesn't magically vanish once it is met. I don't understand how forcing people to continually assail Gamestop employees at ungodly and inopportune times about the possibilities of Wiis in "the back" helps anyone. Nintendo doesn't make a sale, Gamestop doesn't make a sale and their employees get additional stress, and the customer looks like an idiot and doesn't get what they want.
Some of you may remember the "Vegonomics" vgcats comic that got thrown around every single slashdot discussion on the topic of the PS3 and Wii launches back in November and thereafter. There was a key insight there that applies just as much to Nintendo as it does to Sony. Supply issues simply mean less revenue, which is rarely a good thing.
That said, the obvious abundance of demand for the Wii is a good thing. However, that is the cause (the demand) which is desirable and good for Nintendo. The current effect (a sellout) is not.
Sometime around Christmas I noticed this kind of thing happening. I don't know what caused it, but a very liberal application of Troll, Redundant, Offtopic and Flamebait modifiers started getting thrown around.
The result is I now metamoderate daily as to do my part in stemming the tide of shoddy moderation. I hope you will contribute as well.
The excitment is still there, but you've highlighted a greater problem.
A video game console being sold out is only rarely a good thing. Being unable to meet demand only means bad things for Nintendo. Imagine how much closer Nintendo would be to the 360's lead, or how much further head the DS would be, if Nintendo could only produce units faster?
The demand doesn't vanish mysteriously once you can meet it with supply. It may dip as the buffer of people waiting to get one is emptied, but the steady desire for the system remains. The only thing the Wii and DS shortages accomplish is reduced sales for Nintendo.
The grind is a point of balance for the game. It, along with training costs, loot tables, and quest objectives, determines the rate at which you progress through the largely stand alone content of the game. If they lowered the experience grind, you might be completely incapable of finishing half the quests in a zone before you'd outleveled them.
Even if they upped the grind, the hardcore players would still be level 70 in no time. The number of level 60-70 Blood Elves and Draenei should be indication enough of this. It's been barely a month and already they're a common sight.
The grind that Blizzard really wants to keep steep is end-game equipment/dungeons. That's what keeps hardcore players in the game, raiding for hours every week.
It takes about 20 minutes to learn how to play any class in WoW. WoW isn't exactly challenging and in general there are only 5-6 skills that are regularly used by each class. I quit playing WoW a little while ago, but the guild I was in had all of Naxx on farm status and we'd regularly play each others characters, with little or no experience with that class, in an attempt to make the end game more enjoyable. I've seen people who've never played a warrior before tank Kel'Thuzad without any problems.
If by "learn" you mean in the same sense as Othello.
There's a difference between learning what does what and learning how to use every skill you have effectively. A lot of players fail at the first step, only learning what 5-6 skills they'll use the most and ignoring the rest. The result is Paladins who don't heal others, Warriors who tank in Berzerker Stance with a 2H, and Druids who aren't aware they're different from Rogues.
It's true that there are typically 5-6 skills each class will use far more than the others. However, the difference between your average player and a good one is the use of the dozen or so others. You may not use Blessing of Protection, Intimidating Shout or Remove Lesser Curse constantly, but knowing you have them and also when to use them makes as big difference.
Some people are capable of getting the basics and some intermediate concepts of a class down in a very short time. More often than not, there are factors which separate these people from others.
1) Experience. These people may not have played the class, but their general game experience is vast. 2) Observation. These people have had the opportunity to observe the class at work whether in game or in videos, and have the sense to remember this information. 3) Adaptation. Even with the previous two, the ability to adapt and fill in knowledge gaps quickly is a notable contributor.
The vast majority of players are lacking in one or more of these categories. For them, it is entirely imperative that they have 60+ levels where skills are slowly added into their repertoire and dungeons slowly progress in role difficulty. Even veteran players can benefit, as extensive exposure to a class allows insights that a 20 minute glance does not typically afford.
I learn quickly, but I remember when I seredipitously discovered my typical opener as a hunter was less efficient than one that was somewhat less intuitive. Even after 30 levels worth of play, there are still things to learn.
Slashdot Mirror
I play my Playstation games via a punch card reader.
Manhunt 2 is coming to the Wii, and hasn't been announced for the other systems yet.
Watching the Nintendo keynotes from the first announcement of the "Revolution", you'll see a huge emphasis by Nintendo on third parties. They've gone out of their way to make amends to developers, especially Capcom and Square. This is why we had Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles and Resident Evil 4 on the Gamecube.
While Nintendo has and can survive on first party titles alone, third party titles are paramount in establishing a hefty marketshare. Gamers gravitate toward the console with the most games, and a larger install base means more potential first party purchases. Nintendo may have made mountains of cash with both the N64 and the Gamecube, but a shrinking install base is not a maintainable business.
I think you're right. It's possible that the Wii and 360 fanboys here need not be as shrill (and we know they're here, the fear of being modded down for attacking the Wii or defending the PS3 is not unfounded). It's even possible that the arguments for those systems are simple and obvious enough that the fanboys can state them without giving away their nature. In any case, I don't think we can complain too much that two out of three camps aren't whining incessantly.
I'd like to personally thank you for posting, especially as yourself and not AC.
I think you're on the mark concerning the Wii and the hardcore crowd. For many people the Wii is perfectly accurate and responsive, but for many hardcore players it won't be. Even the smallest loss of response time or accuracy can be frustrating (I completely stopped playing Halo 2 on Xbox Live because at 10 sensitivity you were never firing where you were pointing) and there is a very small amount of lag associated with the Wii remote.
This doensn't mean they won't play it or buy it, I've had and enjoyed one since launch. But it also means they'll want a system or games with precision. I also own an Xbox 360, and will likely eventually own a PS3 (Whenever they get some games worth the console's price). Hardcore gamers will likely buy the Wii, but not just the Wii. That's an insight that doesn't often get brought up, forgotten in the factional strife. It's great someone like you did.
Thanks again for posting.
I apologize, I used some confusing grammar.
I wasn't asserting that Nintendo was unhurt until late in the Gamecube's lifecycle, but rather that there wasn't significant third party support until then.
Nintendo wasn't thriving in terms of market share, but they were still more profitable than Sony's game divisions despite losing their throne. They could have been incredibly rich if they'd kept the third parties, and thus the market share, but they were weren't sinking without them.
It's a question on many people's minds if Sony can survive the same way Nintendo did. Nintendo is literally a monster of first party developers, with many first party titles (though not all AAA) raking in cash. Sony has some first party developers, but nowhere near the production of Nintendo. Adding to the situation that PS3s are sold at a loss, it's entirely possible that were Sony to fall into the same position Nintendo held for the past two generations they might be forced to fold.
It's speculation, and I don't think it will happen, but it's a concern that is on the minds of many.
I'd actually make a distinction here. There are fans and fanboys.
A fan has an obvious bias, but this isn't something that distorts reality in any truly appreciable way. There may be facts they are unaware of, but they aren't actively in denial of circumstances or conciously spinning arguments to their benefit. They simply like one console more than others, and bring that to the table.
A fanboy goes beyond bias. They actively select facts and creat distortions to support their system. They are unable to properly make viable arguments for their console or against others without resorting to insults, hearsay, and utter stupidity. They almost always post AC.
There are 360/Wii Fanboys, but they don't show up here too often. It isn't necessary because the majority of people here are at worst neutral about the 360 or the Wii. Most things posted about either of those two consoles is positive, and anything negative is an object of discussion.
There are, sadly, a lot of Sony Fanboys. There seems to be a crack team of FUDers running amuck in any article relevant to the console wars. They are ridiculed, and only make the situation worse for Sony.
Quite simply, the only solution to the problem is not to criticize the fanboys, but for people with dissenting view and opinions to screw karma and post (intelligently) with their name. You are a target for the Wii/360 fanboys who lurk more than post, but you are also depriving us of valid insight and opinion if you don't.
So post your dissenting views. At least one person here will appreciate it.
Nintendo being fueled by 1st party titles saved them, not hurt them.
1st party titles have always made more money for the company producing them than licensed third parties, at least directly. What third party titles accomplish is an increased player base. More games means more systems sold means a bigger market for lucrative first party titles.
Nintendo was hurt by not having significant third party support until late in the Gamecube's lifespan. The 1st party exlusives are the only thing that kept them afloat, albeit "afloat" in this case is "ridiculously profitable".
I just had to clear that up.
The difference betweena 720p or 1080i HDTV and a 1080p one is at least $1000, usually more. My 1080i set was ~$1700 including a stand, but would have cost me ~$2900 for the 1080p model without a stand.
I asked to be shown a 1080i set versus a 1080p set, and though each had a video feed native to its resolution I wasn't able to see enough of a difference to warrant spending nearly twice as much.
720p and 1080i are beautiful. I'm sure people with the eyes of a hawk will be able to see stark differences between those resolutions and 1080p, but I don't.
It is important to note I was looking at movies/video feeds rather than video games. Something with more obvious pixels might make the difference a little less obscure.
This post is made of God and win.
Simply hilarious.
That's okay, welfare should be enough to cover them.
The 12 steps really seem more along the lines of, "12 steps to managing your e-mail more efficiently" rather than breaking any habits. At the same time, they don't increase e-mail checking efficiency. In fact, half of them don't even seem to be steps.
However, there's a deep question here. Who the heck includes multiple subjects in one e-mail? Even with spambots I've never seen "Re: The backyard/fiscal policy".
So weird.
All I know is that after Mega Man X, I stopped playing Mega Man games. X was awesome, but something about the sequels lost me. Legends was interesting but ultimately came down to endlessly strafing every boss and enemy in the game. I honestly can't say anything about the handheld games.
Call me old fashioned, but I really just want an old style Mega Man game with 8 Robot masters.
Regardless, the criticism holds.
You can argue that breaking up Clover was not bad, as many of its recent games were not received as well as they might have been. However, there is room to be skeptical about the practice in general.
The perception is, and is sometimes true, that teams with great synergy are broken up and divided amongst other groups by the callous processes of HR. Whether or not this is standard practice is not the issue, whether or not this is good practice is.
There's nothing wrong with the Japanese model of signing up with the company rather than for a position. However, there is something wrong with the unjustified cannibalization of programming teams.
This is a very well articulated and thought out response. Your points stand very well, such that I could only resort to minor quibbling were I to make an attempt to dissect them.
I will say that I did think the Wii would do very well, but like everyone who did I was surprised it has done as well as it has. It is incredible, and I rib on my friends that old fogeys are getting their Wiis first while they make excuses.
I will also say that my greatest concern is that we will see DSLite-esque shortages for some time yet. Nintendo is still unable to produce enough of their handheld to meet demand, particularly in Japan. My sincere hope is that the situation improves for both the Wii and the DS before long.
This is an interesting perspective. While I think my point stands to some extent, this is invaluable insight into the "Why?" behind the extreme difficulty in getting Wiis, and into Nintendo itself.
Thanks.
I agree with you. I stated in my OP that "Demand doesn't magically vanish once it is met." As you noted, this isn't an artificial cap being placed to attempt to increase demand. This is simply demand outstripping supply.
My argument is that being unable to meet demand isn't good. Having that demand is, but it would be much better for Nintendo if they could supply our ravenous Wii craving.
I'll grant that my wording wasn't as precise as it should have been, but don't misconstrue my point.
I'm not claiming that selling well is a bad thing, I'm claiming that failing to meet demand is. Selling well at X quantity per Y time is excellent. However, when you have the potential to sell 2X or 3X in the same Y time it is difficult to argue that being unable to supply more than X is a good thing.
If Nintendo were selling twice as many Wiis a month as now, but also had systems on shelves, it obviously wouldn't mean that excitement was dying. Selling out doesn't intrinsically show that there is excitement or incredible demand. How much product is being sold does. Refer again to the comic I referenced in my OP.
They may not be crying themselves to sleep, but I'm sure they'd be even happier if they could be selling more Wiis. As I stated before, the demand for Wiis is independant of the supply, and the demand is high. Failing to meet that demand simply means delayed and lost sales for Nintendo, something they don't want.
I'm sure they're absolutely ecstatic about the demand.
From the very launch of the DSLite in Japan it has been sold out, as difficult to get as Wiis have been here. This is hardly a short-term demand issue at this point. I'll grant that Nintendo potentially has better resources than I do to evaluate the demand for their systems and the risks involved in ramping up production, but at face value having multiple products which disappear from shelves within minutes of being restocked strikes me as a supply significantly below demand.
The last report I read had the Wii at 7% availability in America. I do not know how this compares to the PS2 or Xbox 360, but it strikes me as very low. 93% of the country is unable to keep the system in stock. My perceptions are my own, and I am not an industry expert, but I think Nintendo could benefit from increased production.
I'll end stating that's it's a good thing to be able to meet demand, whether you're Sony or Nintendo. If Sony is meeting demand, I do not think it is honest to fault them for it. If demand for the PS3 is low that is surely a grave point of concern, but a separate point from their ability to meet demand. You could argue that Sony should not receive applause for meeting low expectations. However, I don't think it's possible to argue honestly that Sony should receive derision for meeting demand.
In conclusion, I enjoyed reading your response. I'm sorry my own wasn't as terse and to the point as yours. I have a bad habit of being long winded.
Thus was relatively low in level. I would open with Concussive Shot, followed by Arcane and then Serpent Sting. However, Arcane Shot's cooldown wouldn't return before the enemy came into my dead zone. I figured out completely by accident that starting with Arcane and following with concussive allowed me to get another Arcane in before the enemy reached me.
Later, Aimed Shot replaced the initial Arcane, but I still was surprised by my discovery as insignificant as it was.
I was waiting for someone to do the obvious and post the VGCats comic, but you have broken the mold.
As has someone else a few posts below you.
I salute you.
The inability to put units on shelves is just that. A concert being sold out is a good thing, but a console being sold out is not.
Nintendo stands to make much more money meeting demand, both for the Wii and the DS. Demand doesn't magically vanish once it is met. I don't understand how forcing people to continually assail Gamestop employees at ungodly and inopportune times about the possibilities of Wiis in "the back" helps anyone. Nintendo doesn't make a sale, Gamestop doesn't make a sale and their employees get additional stress, and the customer looks like an idiot and doesn't get what they want.
Some of you may remember the "Vegonomics" vgcats comic that got thrown around every single slashdot discussion on the topic of the PS3 and Wii launches back in November and thereafter. There was a key insight there that applies just as much to Nintendo as it does to Sony. Supply issues simply mean less revenue, which is rarely a good thing.
That said, the obvious abundance of demand for the Wii is a good thing. However, that is the cause (the demand) which is desirable and good for Nintendo. The current effect (a sellout) is not.
Sometime around Christmas I noticed this kind of thing happening. I don't know what caused it, but a very liberal application of Troll, Redundant, Offtopic and Flamebait modifiers started getting thrown around.
The result is I now metamoderate daily as to do my part in stemming the tide of shoddy moderation. I hope you will contribute as well.
I found your OP insightful personally.
The excitment is still there, but you've highlighted a greater problem.
A video game console being sold out is only rarely a good thing. Being unable to meet demand only means bad things for Nintendo. Imagine how much closer Nintendo would be to the 360's lead, or how much further head the DS would be, if Nintendo could only produce units faster?
The demand doesn't vanish mysteriously once you can meet it with supply. It may dip as the buffer of people waiting to get one is emptied, but the steady desire for the system remains. The only thing the Wii and DS shortages accomplish is reduced sales for Nintendo.
Actually, that's not accurate.
The grind is a point of balance for the game. It, along with training costs, loot tables, and quest objectives, determines the rate at which you progress through the largely stand alone content of the game. If they lowered the experience grind, you might be completely incapable of finishing half the quests in a zone before you'd outleveled them.
Even if they upped the grind, the hardcore players would still be level 70 in no time. The number of level 60-70 Blood Elves and Draenei should be indication enough of this. It's been barely a month and already they're a common sight.
The grind that Blizzard really wants to keep steep is end-game equipment/dungeons. That's what keeps hardcore players in the game, raiding for hours every week.
If by "learn" you mean in the same sense as Othello.
There's a difference between learning what does what and learning how to use every skill you have effectively. A lot of players fail at the first step, only learning what 5-6 skills they'll use the most and ignoring the rest. The result is Paladins who don't heal others, Warriors who tank in Berzerker Stance with a 2H, and Druids who aren't aware they're different from Rogues.
It's true that there are typically 5-6 skills each class will use far more than the others. However, the difference between your average player and a good one is the use of the dozen or so others. You may not use Blessing of Protection, Intimidating Shout or Remove Lesser Curse constantly, but knowing you have them and also when to use them makes as big difference.
Some people are capable of getting the basics and some intermediate concepts of a class down in a very short time. More often than not, there are factors which separate these people from others.
1) Experience. These people may not have played the class, but their general game experience is vast.
2) Observation. These people have had the opportunity to observe the class at work whether in game or in videos, and have the sense to remember this information.
3) Adaptation. Even with the previous two, the ability to adapt and fill in knowledge gaps quickly is a notable contributor.
The vast majority of players are lacking in one or more of these categories. For them, it is entirely imperative that they have 60+ levels where skills are slowly added into their repertoire and dungeons slowly progress in role difficulty. Even veteran players can benefit, as extensive exposure to a class allows insights that a 20 minute glance does not typically afford.
I learn quickly, but I remember when I seredipitously discovered my typical opener as a hunter was less efficient than one that was somewhat less intuitive. Even after 30 levels worth of play, there are still things to learn.