Just because they're working on the new system, doesn't mean that it's coming out soon. They could be working on something they're planning on launching in 2010 (although 2009 is more likely, given previous cycles). And, like the article states, don't think for a second that Sony and Nintendo aren't already doing some development of the PS4 and Wii2 or whatever. (WiiII?)
Typically, though, while the game could look exactly (EXACTLY) the same, older (last-gen) used a lot of compression to get their higher-res stuff on one game DVD. So, the only real difference, (unless they've really done some truly amazing things with renders and such) is that load times may decrease by not having to compress the graphics and such. That is a good thing, though. I'm still not sure if it's $600-worth-it, but it's a good trend.
and in the mag, the illustrations are awesome. However, I did feel that there's so much more information than presented. The story could have easily been a feature, but ended up being just another good Wired story...
I am totally getting a Wii, so this is not slanted in any way, but honestly, I'm concerned about the strain that using a motion-sensitive controller for every game, every movement, etc. will have. Seriously. I'm all for getting up off the couch, interactivity, and innovation. However, when I want to do some monster gaming session on Zelda, or Metroid Prime or something, how long can I really play before my body says "sit down, and stop flailing about. Plug that GC controller in right now, young man...":)
But I think the Wii-60 argument is really compelling. The idea that you can buy both machines for a price comparable to the PS3, and have both next-gen graphics as well as innovative gameplay... I don't really see why you wouldn't, especially as we're entering this age of multi-platform games being the norm, due publishers and devs trying to make back their high development costs.
you would want to have the high-end system ($600), at least one "off the shelf" game ($60) and a downloadable title, like Geometry Wars was for the 360, right? And using the same model, you can expect that game to come out between $5-8 dollars. So, for the sake of argument, let's make it $6.00.
So, for one system, game, and download, you're spending... waaaait!
You know, as a corporate drone, I was thinking the same thing. And while I'm sure you're trying to make a joke (and a good one), the truth is I'm quite certain that many managers and companies are thinking the very same idea. The idea that you can cram more production into less space is always desireable (from a management standpoint, mind you...)
So if this tech really does take off, I would not be surprised to see myself and others working in a "hexicle" soon enough... (sadly)
Quite honestly, however, I did agree with the author more often than not in this piece. But at the same time, I completely agree with your funny, yet intelligent thought, that games aren't made for us. Sure they want to sell to us, but we're not the "core demographic". They want someone who's going to play the game fiercely, talk about it to all their friends and gamers online, spread the gospel, and therefore sell more copies to more hardcore gamers, and so on and so on....
We're a dollar cog in the million dollar machine, so the fact that save points don't come frequently enough is an "old people" problem. It's more important to have the intensity of "will I survive until the next save point" than "I can really only play for about half an hour... will I have a chance to save?"
And I think as the gaming generation ages, it's something people have to really think about. Because while the young, brash minds producing calls of "So U R upset about a longer game? N00b!" are annoying and grammatically...odd, they have a point. But the gameplay has to be structured in a way that it can be crystallized and played in smaller nuggets, and yet still flow. This makes a game that takes forever to be fun. Because if you have to figure out where you are, and what your inventory is, and where your next "checkpoint" is from memory of when you played the game three days ago, you're more likely to not pick up that game. But if the system flows and keeps you where you were, and helps you remember these things, and is structured in such a way as to encourage you to play even when it's been a while, then that's gaming for the adult set. (No, not THAT adult. With the job and the money and the wife and such, we get that stuff for free now. No need to see it in the games.:P)
Nothing really to add, but to give you props for remembering Cool Spot. And I agree, as I remember, it was at least a mediocre platformer, not too bad.
I replied to your previous comment on this as well. You're looking at things from a purely financial standpoint, whereas I see it as a "on the gamers' radar" standpoint.
If Wii doesn't sell well, and for argument's sake, neither does the PS3, who stands to benefit in the minds (and living rooms) of the world? Microsoft.
Again, that is not to say Nintendo won't make more money (because truthfully, Nintendo will hedge everything very well as they always have, with a great business-savvy, and be fine).
Just to say that when consoles come out again, it will be like two years ago, when people were saying "PS3 will be the thing to beat" until specs and figures came out...
Microsoft will be there with the "successful" consoles, (perhaps not in terms of profits, but in terms of perhaps brand loyalty, if anything), and Nintendo will have to "prove it" in terms of the system.
Don't get me wrong. I love Nintendo, and hope the Wii is a success... I plan on getting one. And I DON'T have a 360. But I still think that MS is not trying to profit on the 360, at least the system itself. They're trying to build a brand that's successful with gamers and synonymous with fun/good product. And if Sony and Nintendo don't do that this generation, then Microsoft, by default, wins in that arena.
Well, I didn't read the article, but the the implication I get is not that Nintendo needs this to be a hit financially, as much as in the public opinion arena, to be a true contender in the console market in the future.
I don't think anyone in their right mind could justify saying Nintendo is going to be in trouble (as a company) if the Wii disappoints. However, it is likely that if it doesn't sell well, and people generally don't adopt it well, that Nintendo may start to be seen as "the" handheld company, and not the "video game" company it is currently. Does that make sense? I just think it's deeper than financial. Sony's not going to fail if the PS3 fails. But it's games division, SCE, will be rocky. But Nintendo, as stated, will make a profit on each unit, ensuring Nintendo isn't going anywhere soon.
But it may not be on people's radar unless they make Wii stick with gamers.
I also believe that DS sales are going to really help the adoption rate of the Wii. People didn't take the DS seriously at first, and now, they're flying off the shelves. I think that people are seeing that Nintendo is not just being innovative to be wierd (okay, not ALL the time, at least), but really trying to push what we consider regular gameplay to be.
that of the big three, Microsoft seems to be in the most stable place currently. Now, I'm by no means an M$ fanboy, but it does seem that the analysts are correct in their looking at Nintendo as needing a solid hit out of the Wii, to have a future in the console market. (They will still be fine with handheld sales alone, of course). Same thing with Sony and their PS3 (excepting the haldheld market, as the PSP is still struggling to find a foothold anywhere). PS3 will no doubt sell well to loyalists and such, but will it be enough to keep the company making as much money as they did in PS2 and game sales?
Only time will tell, but it's very interesting that this all places quite a bit on Microsoft's side, as they are going to be regarded as the "established" player in the market, come Christmastime, and with a well timed and measured price cut, they could be looking at a very good situation over there...
I personally (and here's the fanboy side) hope the Wii does well. Even if it's not all we hoped, it's still someone trying to innovate in a market crowded with sequels, little improvements from generation to generation, and I hope they are rewarded for it. I think it will do much better than say, the Dreamcast. But, overall, it's going to be an interesting year from here on out to see where the consumer speaks with their wallets...
I have played Perplex City on and off... I'm not a hardcore player, but it's definitely down my alley as a writer for ARGN.com.
But honestly, it's a tightly done game. The puzzles are just right, if not downright difficult (well, anything above green), the online stuff is of excellent quality, and the story is fun and intriguing.
If you haven't checked it out yet, do so. Don't be discouraged that Season one is about to end, as there is a definite season two in the works!
(And for the record, NO, I do not work for Perplex City, Mind Candy, or any of the other folks behind the project... just a fan of the genre.)
You make excellent points, but my thinking of the drive for future systems is based upon this idea:
That future games will be much larger (if they continue on the more poly-count, nicer graphics model that MS and Sony are following currently), and therefore, if we actually get (or really, even need HD games, not just resolution-upped games, like Sony and MS do), then those games will need a high-capacity delivery device. While you have a valid point that direct-download may be more viable, I can't imagine thousands of video game stores shutting their doors for good, because no one buys discs anymore. It may be a different thing altogether, and download definitely looks like a major component of future gaming platforms, but I still think you're going to see a boxed product that you can buy at a retail bricks and mortar store, for many many years to come, if not for at least the next two generations of consoles.
Especially given, the European markets do not have ubiquitous broadband like America has. My personal prediction (YMMV) is that until we have pretty much nationwide and really world-wide ubiquitous WiFi broadband, you're not going to see a major console maker ditch the physical "game" format. But again, I do see direct download as the future. I think we just differ as to how long a span between now and that realized future may be.
This is, of course, not to say another peripheral or future version of the console might require such a thing
My opinion, is that this perhipheral (should it survive the Blu-Ray battle) will be compatible with future consoles. It only makes sense. It gives added value to the drive (and people will still buy next-gen HD-DVD players, if only for tweak upgrades, so MS will likely still get good profits off the perhipheral despite age). But the point is, that this makes the drive that much more versatile in the future, than say the internal Blu-Ray drive of the PS3, because it's external.
I don't of course, have any "proof" of this or anything, but it sure would make a lot of smart business and media sense, looking forward to next-next gen wars. YMMV, and in full disclosure, I'm likely not getting a PS3, but I'm definitely not an Xbox fanboy. I'm just thinking in terms of better strategy, having an external drive makes it more valuable if the format survives through the next iteration of gaming consoles, especially, if, like the 360, the next Xbox console will process the data through the hardware, and not through the external device.
Not to mention that prices for games have skyrocketed!
Olden days: $0.25=1 game
Now: up to $2.00 for ONE FREAKING GAME, depending on how huge or "immersive" the game case is.
Until they (the retailers, not the game companies, because the arcades themselves set the price), realize that I'll gladly pay over $2 in a game that I could play for even $0.50 a pop, than one that I would not play more than once at $2, or not at all, then they won't get customers. People don't have that kind of disposable income, at least not the kids that they want/need to revitalize the arcade.
Best of luck, because it's an awesome ideal. I loved the arcade. But I think people are greedy in terms of not fixing coin slots, but moreso in the pricing scheme of the games. Who wouldn't play the next rocking racing game for $.25 a pop, multiple times over and over... I would. More than you'd get out of me, by playing for $.75 or $1 at a time, that's for sure.
I agree it's a good idea. Like a "MMOG Channel" that you could log in, like (shudder) GameTap or something, where you have access to all these games. All the game places would opt-in, and instead of managing multiple passwords, etc... you could have one, with one fee (but let's be realistic here... it would have to be something like $40/month I think, to get the publishers on board), and the profits would be split according to players involved in the games.
So say you've got WoW, EverQuest, and whatever else is being played these days with a fee, and say, WoW gets double the playership of the other games that month. Well, WoW would get 50% of the profits, and the remainder gets split up accordingly. I think that could actually work. Good idea, man.
is that Sega had a lot going for them, they did indeed lose their "focus", and when they did apply it well, in the DreamCast, it was too early. There was no competition and OMG, the controllers...
The DreamCast had crazy great capabilities, well beyond that of anything else in that gen, but people weren't ready to plunk down hard earned cash to make it happen. We had a DreamCast in our home, and we loved it. But can you imagine if the DreamCast came out when downloadable or online play was possible at broadband speeds? It would have been a totally different story!
The DreamCast was the first console to be able to hook up to the internet (for browsing or other things), and that was huge. But the bandwidth wasn't there to do anything really useful with it. If you could do anything even remotely comparable to Xbox Live with that thing, man, it would have been amazing how well that system would have lasted and performed in the market, I guarantee....
Just a comment on the storage add ons. It does appear from comments made by SCEA execs, that the hard drive will be upgradeable (ugh) like a computer.
So, storage space (shouldn't) be a problem. Unless they do what they'll likely do, which is make a specific drive that will only work in the PS3, and that will only be available from -surprise!- SCEA.
I'm in the same boat, (except I don't yet own a 360)... I'm entirely certain I will purchase a Wii close to launch, if not on launch. I'm typically not that kind of person. I'm an avid gamer, and I love what hi-def, next-gen brings to the table, but if I can get nearly the entire back-catalogue of NES, SuperNES and N64 games as well as get the cool new games designed to utilize the Wii's strange capabilities... that's what gaming is all about!
The reason all of us got into gaming in the first place, was that it was new... exciting... imaginative. While I still don't like the name, the console is one of the first in a long time to really bring that back.
Playstation did it with discs that were black (admit it, it was really cool at the time), with the combination of rumble and analog controls, with great games, and all in one package.
Before that, Nintendo brought it with the first "arcade-quality" system that you could own in the home. I remember thinking to myself "Why are these people paying money to play Super Mario Bros? I can go home and play it for free!" That was a cool moment.
Anyway, Wii seems to be taking this one step further, bringing innovation and by breaking gameplay conventions, bringing something unique to the home, and that's what's going to help it sell. I would not be surprised if it outsells the PS3, claiming console dominance this round.
Next round, who knows?
I really was not expecting to purchase a Wii when I first heard about it. However, after the excellent showing at E3, plus the news that the console will likely be $200-$250 at launch, as well as this news that games will be exceedingly moderate in terms of the retro downloadables... it's definitely going to be on my wish list for Christmas (and if I don't get it, I'll of course buy it.)
Nintendo is seemingly making all the right moves right now... Congrats to them. Good marketing, good development, and most importantly right now, good pricing scheme so far. It's really a rock-solid console right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because they're working on the new system, doesn't mean that it's coming out soon. They could be working on something they're planning on launching in 2010 (although 2009 is more likely, given previous cycles). And, like the article states, don't think for a second that Sony and Nintendo aren't already doing some development of the PS4 and Wii2 or whatever. (WiiII?)
Typically, though, while the game could look exactly (EXACTLY) the same, older (last-gen) used a lot of compression to get their higher-res stuff on one game DVD. So, the only real difference, (unless they've really done some truly amazing things with renders and such) is that load times may decrease by not having to compress the graphics and such. That is a good thing, though. I'm still not sure if it's $600-worth-it, but it's a good trend.
and in the mag, the illustrations are awesome. However, I did feel that there's so much more information than presented. The story could have easily been a feature, but ended up being just another good Wired story...
I was going to make a joke about a Wii in a vaccum, but I decided against it.
I am totally getting a Wii, so this is not slanted in any way, but honestly, I'm concerned about the strain that using a motion-sensitive controller for every game, every movement, etc. will have. Seriously. I'm all for getting up off the couch, interactivity, and innovation. However, when I want to do some monster gaming session on Zelda, or Metroid Prime or something, how long can I really play before my body says "sit down, and stop flailing about. Plug that GC controller in right now, young man..." :)
But I think the Wii-60 argument is really compelling. The idea that you can buy both machines for a price comparable to the PS3, and have both next-gen graphics as well as innovative gameplay... I don't really see why you wouldn't, especially as we're entering this age of multi-platform games being the norm, due publishers and devs trying to make back their high development costs.
you would want to have the high-end system ($600), at least one "off the shelf" game ($60) and a downloadable title, like Geometry Wars was for the 360, right? And using the same model, you can expect that game to come out between $5-8 dollars. So, for the sake of argument, let's make it $6.00.
So, for one system, game, and download, you're spending... waaaait!
You know, as a corporate drone, I was thinking the same thing. And while I'm sure you're trying to make a joke (and a good one), the truth is I'm quite certain that many managers and companies are thinking the very same idea. The idea that you can cram more production into less space is always desireable (from a management standpoint, mind you...)
So if this tech really does take off, I would not be surprised to see myself and others working in a "hexicle" soon enough... (sadly)
Count me in as another old sucker. :)
:P)
Quite honestly, however, I did agree with the author more often than not in this piece. But at the same time, I completely agree with your funny, yet intelligent thought, that games aren't made for us. Sure they want to sell to us, but we're not the "core demographic". They want someone who's going to play the game fiercely, talk about it to all their friends and gamers online, spread the gospel, and therefore sell more copies to more hardcore gamers, and so on and so on....
We're a dollar cog in the million dollar machine, so the fact that save points don't come frequently enough is an "old people" problem. It's more important to have the intensity of "will I survive until the next save point" than "I can really only play for about half an hour... will I have a chance to save?"
And I think as the gaming generation ages, it's something people have to really think about. Because while the young, brash minds producing calls of "So U R upset about a longer game? N00b!" are annoying and grammatically...odd, they have a point. But the gameplay has to be structured in a way that it can be crystallized and played in smaller nuggets, and yet still flow. This makes a game that takes forever to be fun. Because if you have to figure out where you are, and what your inventory is, and where your next "checkpoint" is from memory of when you played the game three days ago, you're more likely to not pick up that game. But if the system flows and keeps you where you were, and helps you remember these things, and is structured in such a way as to encourage you to play even when it's been a while, then that's gaming for the adult set. (No, not THAT adult. With the job and the money and the wife and such, we get that stuff for free now. No need to see it in the games.
Nothing really to add, but to give you props for remembering Cool Spot. And I agree, as I remember, it was at least a mediocre platformer, not too bad.
I replied to your previous comment on this as well. You're looking at things from a purely financial standpoint, whereas I see it as a "on the gamers' radar" standpoint.
If Wii doesn't sell well, and for argument's sake, neither does the PS3, who stands to benefit in the minds (and living rooms) of the world? Microsoft.
Again, that is not to say Nintendo won't make more money (because truthfully, Nintendo will hedge everything very well as they always have, with a great business-savvy, and be fine).
Just to say that when consoles come out again, it will be like two years ago, when people were saying "PS3 will be the thing to beat" until specs and figures came out...
Microsoft will be there with the "successful" consoles, (perhaps not in terms of profits, but in terms of perhaps brand loyalty, if anything), and Nintendo will have to "prove it" in terms of the system.
Don't get me wrong. I love Nintendo, and hope the Wii is a success... I plan on getting one. And I DON'T have a 360. But I still think that MS is not trying to profit on the 360, at least the system itself. They're trying to build a brand that's successful with gamers and synonymous with fun/good product. And if Sony and Nintendo don't do that this generation, then Microsoft, by default, wins in that arena.
Well, I didn't read the article, but the the implication I get is not that Nintendo needs this to be a hit financially, as much as in the public opinion arena, to be a true contender in the console market in the future.
I don't think anyone in their right mind could justify saying Nintendo is going to be in trouble (as a company) if the Wii disappoints. However, it is likely that if it doesn't sell well, and people generally don't adopt it well, that Nintendo may start to be seen as "the" handheld company, and not the "video game" company it is currently. Does that make sense? I just think it's deeper than financial. Sony's not going to fail if the PS3 fails. But it's games division, SCE, will be rocky. But Nintendo, as stated, will make a profit on each unit, ensuring Nintendo isn't going anywhere soon.
But it may not be on people's radar unless they make Wii stick with gamers.
Mod Parent Up!
I also believe that DS sales are going to really help the adoption rate of the Wii. People didn't take the DS seriously at first, and now, they're flying off the shelves. I think that people are seeing that Nintendo is not just being innovative to be wierd (okay, not ALL the time, at least), but really trying to push what we consider regular gameplay to be.
that of the big three, Microsoft seems to be in the most stable place currently. Now, I'm by no means an M$ fanboy, but it does seem that the analysts are correct in their looking at Nintendo as needing a solid hit out of the Wii, to have a future in the console market. (They will still be fine with handheld sales alone, of course). Same thing with Sony and their PS3 (excepting the haldheld market, as the PSP is still struggling to find a foothold anywhere). PS3 will no doubt sell well to loyalists and such, but will it be enough to keep the company making as much money as they did in PS2 and game sales?
Only time will tell, but it's very interesting that this all places quite a bit on Microsoft's side, as they are going to be regarded as the "established" player in the market, come Christmastime, and with a well timed and measured price cut, they could be looking at a very good situation over there...
I personally (and here's the fanboy side) hope the Wii does well. Even if it's not all we hoped, it's still someone trying to innovate in a market crowded with sequels, little improvements from generation to generation, and I hope they are rewarded for it. I think it will do much better than say, the Dreamcast. But, overall, it's going to be an interesting year from here on out to see where the consumer speaks with their wallets...
Mod Parent Funny!
I have played Perplex City on and off... I'm not a hardcore player, but it's definitely down my alley as a writer for ARGN.com.
But honestly, it's a tightly done game. The puzzles are just right, if not downright difficult (well, anything above green), the online stuff is of excellent quality, and the story is fun and intriguing.
If you haven't checked it out yet, do so. Don't be discouraged that Season one is about to end, as there is a definite season two in the works!
(And for the record, NO, I do not work for Perplex City, Mind Candy, or any of the other folks behind the project... just a fan of the genre.)
It's a modification to an original game (mod) and RTS means Real-Time Strategy, so think of it like a Starcraft for the Halo Universe.
You make excellent points, but my thinking of the drive for future systems is based upon this idea:
That future games will be much larger (if they continue on the more poly-count, nicer graphics model that MS and Sony are following currently), and therefore, if we actually get (or really, even need HD games, not just resolution-upped games, like Sony and MS do), then those games will need a high-capacity delivery device. While you have a valid point that direct-download may be more viable, I can't imagine thousands of video game stores shutting their doors for good, because no one buys discs anymore. It may be a different thing altogether, and download definitely looks like a major component of future gaming platforms, but I still think you're going to see a boxed product that you can buy at a retail bricks and mortar store, for many many years to come, if not for at least the next two generations of consoles.
Especially given, the European markets do not have ubiquitous broadband like America has. My personal prediction (YMMV) is that until we have pretty much nationwide and really world-wide ubiquitous WiFi broadband, you're not going to see a major console maker ditch the physical "game" format. But again, I do see direct download as the future. I think we just differ as to how long a span between now and that realized future may be.
This is, of course, not to say another peripheral or future version of the console might require such a thing
My opinion, is that this perhipheral (should it survive the Blu-Ray battle) will be compatible with future consoles. It only makes sense. It gives added value to the drive (and people will still buy next-gen HD-DVD players, if only for tweak upgrades, so MS will likely still get good profits off the perhipheral despite age). But the point is, that this makes the drive that much more versatile in the future, than say the internal Blu-Ray drive of the PS3, because it's external.
I don't of course, have any "proof" of this or anything, but it sure would make a lot of smart business and media sense, looking forward to next-next gen wars. YMMV, and in full disclosure, I'm likely not getting a PS3, but I'm definitely not an Xbox fanboy. I'm just thinking in terms of better strategy, having an external drive makes it more valuable if the format survives through the next iteration of gaming consoles, especially, if, like the 360, the next Xbox console will process the data through the hardware, and not through the external device.
Mod parent up! Most original funny I've read in a long long time 'round these parts. :)
Not to mention that prices for games have skyrocketed!
Olden days: $0.25=1 game
Now: up to $2.00 for ONE FREAKING GAME, depending on how huge or "immersive" the game case is.
Until they (the retailers, not the game companies, because the arcades themselves set the price), realize that I'll gladly pay over $2 in a game that I could play for even $0.50 a pop, than one that I would not play more than once at $2, or not at all, then they won't get customers. People don't have that kind of disposable income, at least not the kids that they want/need to revitalize the arcade.
Best of luck, because it's an awesome ideal. I loved the arcade. But I think people are greedy in terms of not fixing coin slots, but moreso in the pricing scheme of the games. Who wouldn't play the next rocking racing game for $.25 a pop, multiple times over and over... I would. More than you'd get out of me, by playing for $.75 or $1 at a time, that's for sure.
I agree it's a good idea. Like a "MMOG Channel" that you could log in, like (shudder) GameTap or something, where you have access to all these games. All the game places would opt-in, and instead of managing multiple passwords, etc... you could have one, with one fee (but let's be realistic here... it would have to be something like $40/month I think, to get the publishers on board), and the profits would be split according to players involved in the games.
So say you've got WoW, EverQuest, and whatever else is being played these days with a fee, and say, WoW gets double the playership of the other games that month. Well, WoW would get 50% of the profits, and the remainder gets split up accordingly. I think that could actually work. Good idea, man.
is that Sega had a lot going for them, they did indeed lose their "focus", and when they did apply it well, in the DreamCast, it was too early. There was no competition and OMG, the controllers...
The DreamCast had crazy great capabilities, well beyond that of anything else in that gen, but people weren't ready to plunk down hard earned cash to make it happen. We had a DreamCast in our home, and we loved it. But can you imagine if the DreamCast came out when downloadable or online play was possible at broadband speeds? It would have been a totally different story!
The DreamCast was the first console to be able to hook up to the internet (for browsing or other things), and that was huge. But the bandwidth wasn't there to do anything really useful with it. If you could do anything even remotely comparable to Xbox Live with that thing, man, it would have been amazing how well that system would have lasted and performed in the market, I guarantee....
Just a comment on the storage add ons. It does appear from comments made by SCEA execs, that the hard drive will be upgradeable (ugh) like a computer.
So, storage space (shouldn't) be a problem. Unless they do what they'll likely do, which is make a specific drive that will only work in the PS3, and that will only be available from -surprise!- SCEA.
I'm in the same boat, (except I don't yet own a 360)... I'm entirely certain I will purchase a Wii close to launch, if not on launch. I'm typically not that kind of person. I'm an avid gamer, and I love what hi-def, next-gen brings to the table, but if I can get nearly the entire back-catalogue of NES, SuperNES and N64 games as well as get the cool new games designed to utilize the Wii's strange capabilities... that's what gaming is all about! The reason all of us got into gaming in the first place, was that it was new... exciting... imaginative. While I still don't like the name, the console is one of the first in a long time to really bring that back. Playstation did it with discs that were black (admit it, it was really cool at the time), with the combination of rumble and analog controls, with great games, and all in one package. Before that, Nintendo brought it with the first "arcade-quality" system that you could own in the home. I remember thinking to myself "Why are these people paying money to play Super Mario Bros? I can go home and play it for free!" That was a cool moment. Anyway, Wii seems to be taking this one step further, bringing innovation and by breaking gameplay conventions, bringing something unique to the home, and that's what's going to help it sell. I would not be surprised if it outsells the PS3, claiming console dominance this round. Next round, who knows?
I really was not expecting to purchase a Wii when I first heard about it. However, after the excellent showing at E3, plus the news that the console will likely be $200-$250 at launch, as well as this news that games will be exceedingly moderate in terms of the retro downloadables... it's definitely going to be on my wish list for Christmas (and if I don't get it, I'll of course buy it.) Nintendo is seemingly making all the right moves right now... Congrats to them. Good marketing, good development, and most importantly right now, good pricing scheme so far. It's really a rock-solid console right now.