OddFactor said:
There's still the Wii for $249.
Have they released a price, yet? I think the common conjecture is that it will run 199. Seems to be their pricepoint of choice.
OddFactor said:
There's still the Wii for $249.
taeric said:Have they released a price, yet? I think the common conjecture is that it will run 199. Seems to be their pricepoint of choice.
taeric said:And I just realized you said they are all getting 30 games..... name some.
Ryokurin said:http://www.ign.com/e3/2006/games/
I only bothered counting Gamecube which is getting 30 which was the smallest.
taeric said:You just supported my point. It doesn't sound the same because it is still slower than their handhelds, but they have the fastest turn around of any of the consoles out there with the GameCube to Wii and the price is most likely 199. This is exactly what I was describing. I just think they are going to stick with the quick console cycle they have started. If they speed it up any, which I would guess they might, the price will drop below 199.
Compare this with the PS2 which I bought day one. I just last month purchased a game for it that is incredibly fun and I would have considered getting the system for it. What is new for the GameCube? The Zelda was looking promising, but they pushed that to the Wii.
wr3kt said:I thought Nintendo had released consoles at the same pace as other consoles.
This would make it seem like all companies simply release a console...and then years later try to release a newer one...with games for it...which ...is... exactly how consoles and systems should work.
wr3kt said:Handhelds have less features which is why they're easier to upgrade/produce/sell in a faster timeline.
wr3kt said:Your argument is invalidated because various branches of technology develop faster than others...so it's not like Nintendo is raping customers and laughing because they release a handheld that's only marginally better than the last, it's because they make advances in technology that allow them to add better games and such.
wr3kt said:I really don't understand your argument.
taeric said:Did you agree with everything else I said?
Looking over the list I see that I should have been a bit more selective. Name more than 3 games that are actually expected to be good. More than that, how many are actually being published by Nintendo?
taeric said:My argument is simple. Nintendo seems poised to bring the desktop consoles in the same upgrade cycle as their handhelds. Why do I say this? Because the Wii is not much of an advancement over the GameCube. Every other home console they have upgraded has been a significant upgrade, this is not.
Make sense?
The Wii has built in wireless networking in addition to its internet support, dvd support, the new controllers, better graphics (compared to the GC), and a smaller package.taeric said:And with every other console release in history (except maybe some of the crappy Sega releases), the new console has been markedly improved from the last. The PS2 was much better than the PS. The SNES was much better than the NES.
The only thing the Wii has, is a new controller. A controller that could have simply been released on the GameCube.
I would have said they are cheaper to upgrade because they are cheaper period. There have been plenty of handhelds that were better than the gameboy, just none took off because of higher costs.
My argument is invalidated? That just sounds funny.
Moving right passed that, though. Nintendo is most definitely not advancing technology with the Wii. I will gladly take the new controller, but to think that is something that could not have been accomplished on the Gamecube.... If you really think that explain to me why all the current Wii development kits are Gamecubes.
Now... I will even admit that it is probably smart to release a new system for this controller. Otherwise it would go down in history with the countless other gimmicks that they have made and flopped.
My argument is simple. Nintendo seems poised to bring the desktop consoles in the same upgrade cycle as their handhelds. Why do I say this? Because the Wii is not much of an advancement over the GameCube. Every other home console they have upgraded has been a significant upgrade, this is not.
Make sense?
Ryokurin said:If you think about it, when has Nintendo stuck around on their older system when a new one is out. Sure they may release one two but never all that much. Also since at this point in time the Gamecube is considered the system for kids while the games they have suck, its appropiate. Hell, even going with that 100+ that was coming out on Playstation I doubt there will be much that will be all time greats either.
Ryokurin said:Im not denying the fact that the Wii is the least powerful, but I still dont see how its a guarantee they will have a replacement two yeas from now.
The Wii has built in wireless networking in addition to its internet support, dvd support, the new controllers, better graphics (compared to the GC), and a smaller package.
Or am I wrong?
How is that not significant?
Also, graphics don't make a game fun.
Shit...look at zelda and SMB; those games are still effing fun to play.
Ryokurin said:http://duggmirror.com/gaming/Nintendo_Wii_Graphics_On_Par_With_Xbox_360_/
something to take with a grain of salt. But as the Gamecube itself proved with some games Nintendo did largely underestimate the power it was capable of.
taeric said:I've already said that the GameCube was quite a powerful system. Graphically it is very impressive and I do wish they had done a little more with it. The only thing I don't like about the Wii is that it seems like a slightly upclocked GameCube with a new controller. So if the only reason they are releasing a new "system" is so that it doesn't look like they are lagging behind the industry, I'm fine with that. I'm just worried they are starting on much faster cycles than necessary.
fly said:How do you pronounce Wii?
And its funny to me the spin required when a platform seems that it will be sooo below the others in terms of technology.
FlyNavy said: