Ben-DutkaCome on. It must've been a coincidence that Nintendo's stock dropped after unveiling the Wii U at E3.
While we certainly remain skeptical, a great many Wii fans are excited. Aren't they? Developers and analysts have been weighing in as well, although most are reserved in their comments. Take Naughty Dog game director Justin Richmond, for example, who told NowGamer that he isn't "completely sold" on Nintendo's new console yet. That being said, he wasn't sold on the original Wii, either, and "look how that did." Added Richmond:
"To be honest with you, the idea of it is very, very cool. But there's nothing that the Wii U has that the Vita and PS3 doesn't. You know, it's an interesting piece of technology, and I'm interested to see how people use it."
He went on to say the Wii U has some "very strange holes in it" and the screen not being multi-touch is a "little weird." But even so, he's convinced that games made for the system could be amazing; after all, Nintendo has always fared well with their first-party gems. Personally, I couldn't possibly care less but Nintendo had me at hello. …love my SNES.
I'm not sold on it either. Think it's got very cool features and technology but I had my reservations bout the wii also despite how well it was doing. So I folded,, bought one and it never got used… The Mario games were all I actually enjoyed on the thing, especially new super Mario bros. But it wasn't because it was on the wii, it was because it was Mario, I felt like I did when I was a kid playing them. To me that's all nintendo has going for them and it's a strong following. The systems themselves well, let's just say in my opinion they are lucky they have those awesome titles.
I agree, Mario games are probably the only ones I'm interested in playing. I'll leave Nintendo for my 2nd cousins until I visit them.
I am going to give them a chance this time around and see if they do well with this concept or not. I won't be investing in this kit personally, but I will definitely track it as an interest to see if Nintendo are really that innovative; i.e. what ever they put their mind too ends up making money.
Before I judge them completely, I give them a chance to see what they do with it and how developers and the public react to the kit upon release.
As we all agree though, it is ALL ABOUT THE GAMES!
Q!
"play.experience.enjoy"
Durnit, posted in the wrong place!
Last edited by Mornelithe on 7/15/2011 1:39:00 AM
Nintendo is turning into the Apple of the videogame biz
Last edited by Cesar_ser_4 on 7/14/2011 11:12:08 AM
How so?
If you gotta ask, you can't know…
making products that look cool and sell well yet are not really useful or fun
@Ceaser, way to dodge the question there champ. I think you have no clue what you're talking about. You just wanted to bash Nintendo and Apple in one fell swoop.
@BTN, umm….I find my iMac and iPhone quite useful for work and play. I'm typing this comment from my iPhone…see useful. Oh, I just got an email from a customer, to which I shall reply…again from my iPhone. Useful.
owned
Maybe he means overpriced tech that is over hyped.
r u saying that because of the color of their hardware?
@Kevin, Yea that must be it, especially since Nintendo charged $500 for the 3DS and $1000 for the Wii…oh wait…
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/14/2011 1:40:20 PM
Well they could easily sell there hardware for less. The ds is still $200. And yes the wii was overpriced when it was released considering the tech.
Umm…no it's not.
http://www.amazon.ca/Nintendo-045496718763-DSi-Matte-Blue/dp/B001T8S62Q/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1310671046&sr=8-3
And if the Wii was over priced when it launched so was the PS2. C'mon Kevin. You're grasping for straws and you're missing every attempt.
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/14/2011 2:20:35 PM
LOL
An apple computer is way better than a pc when it's used like it's meant to be used. Anything artistic such as music composition, graphic arts, video, etc., the Mac excels at it. When it comes to office work only, you might as well go the cheaper route and get a pc.
Last edited by tes37 on 7/14/2011 2:56:50 PM
@ Jawknee: User preference aside, which is honestly more of a driving point than actual value for dollar (unfortunately). He's correct. Apple products are extremely overpriced for what they deliver, and the Wii was overpriced from launch, continues to be overpriced, and as long as people still keep buying them, will likely remain to be overpriced for the duration.
Again, I'm not touching your personal preference, because…that's your choice. But, the intentionally provocative comments aside, they are overpriced.
@ Tes: Correct, however, the problem is, for the price of what they charge for a Mac, you can build an Windows based PC, that far exceeds the specs of a Mac. The other major difference is software support. Windows has it in droves, Mac doesn't. That doesn't mean there isn't support for all software, just…not as much as for Windows based machines.
It's like buying an alienware PC, versus, building one on your own. You end up with pretty much the same cost/value discrepancy.
Last edited by Mornelithe on 7/14/2011 3:12:01 PM
I believe there to be a greater value with the Mac. Straight out of the box, with a couple hundred dollar price difference, you get better performance. To some people, performance may not be an issue, but it's noticeable to me and I prefer Macintosh.
When it comes to building your own pc, at least you know what your getting and not relying on exaggerated specs.
$150 for a Wii is over priced? Sorry, I just don't agree. As for Apple, yea their stuff is expensive but its quality built hardware and the iMac I bought for my wife for work, over 3 years now is still running like new and I only paid a little over 2k for it. It was the largest screen they were offering at the time. the max amount of memory and a 1T drive. I just bought a new iPhone 4. $199.99 with a new contract which is worth it in my opinion, again because its a tough, quality piece of hardware.
Besides, I never argued Apple stuff wasn't expensive. Only that Nintendo hardware is not. They cannot be compared. I have never paid more than a few hundred dollars for anything Nintendo.
@Indeed Tes. I bought a Vaio which is also a nice piece of hardware but the software performance(Windows 7) is no where near as good as Mac OS on our iMac.
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/14/2011 3:47:01 PM
Come on Jawknee, don't try to make me seem like an ignorant xbot when I'm not. The reason i typed it was because it really does seem like nintendo is following apple's footsteps because they release products that lack features but still sale like crazy. Then, they release the next device. with more features but still somewhat lacking. but those millions that bought the wii or the original ds and nothing else will see it as the next great thing, and if nintendo is really turning into apple, will sell like crazy again. I didn't post it to bash either company.
"don't try to make me seem like an ignorant xbot when I'm not."
Are you mad?
I never implied you were an ignorant Xbot. Only that your comment was ignorant in general. I'm still not entirely sure what you're talking about as neither Apple OR Nintendo do what you claim they do.
Unfortunately, my Father (Systems Administrator for a University) and a co-worker from a previous IT firm would disagree with you. Apple uses substandard internals, poorly made, and quite cheap. His co-worker deconstructed a Mac, and found that the internals were underclocked and from companies prone to poor manufacturing. What that means is they can take something that was poorly manufactured, but keep it from performing at it's peak, in order to lengthen it's lifespan…however, it will eventually succumb to the poor manufacturing problems.
Again, this is simply what builds a Mac, and is no slant on your preferences. You can buy them to your hearts content, but it doesn't negate the fact that Mac's are overpriced and under-performing for that price premium.
What you're in fact paying for, is really a shiny box. As I said, like an alienware desktop. Glitz and glamour, and little else.
@ Tes: We're not talking a few hundred dollars difference, we're talking 500-1000 dollars difference. It is, in fact, quite a large markup for what you're actually getting in return.
And yes, building your own PC is by far, the best way to approach it. Yes, I understand not everyone wants to take the time…but really, given that it takes a couple hours with instructions, or an hour tops if you're experienced…that really is no excuse in my opinion. But, as I said, it's all about preference, real facts rarely mean anything to anyone these days. No, I don't mean that as a slam, simply, people demand satisfaction immediately, and will pay the price for it, one way or another.
And Jawknee, disagree or don't, but if you break down what makes a Nintendo Wii and add up the price, it isn't $150. To put it in perspective, by 2009, the Wii's production costs had been reduced by roughly %47, so, by 2009 the Wii cost Nintendo ~$132.50 to make. In 2 years, development costs for ages old tech doesn't increase.
Last edited by Mornelithe on 7/14/2011 5:26:22 PM
My experience has been the opposite. I only had issues with my wifes Mac book from about 8 years ago and that didn't start having problems until about 6 or 7 years into its life after heavy use.
I believe you about your father and his findings. I have read your posts here and on other sites and you have never given me a reason not to believe what you say however those things just don't matter to most consumers. Macs serve my purposes greatly and that's what I am paying for. Not just a shiny box.
Also with the Wii, yea you're probably correct that it's not worth $150 when you break it down into to nuts and bolts but that's irrelevant. Nintendo is a business, a business needs to make a profit and in order to make a profit they have to sell what they produce for more than what it costs them to produce it. The Wii is less capable than the PS3 or the Xbox 360 but it's also the cheapest console on the market. $150 for a console that does what's intended to do is not a unfair asking price.
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/14/2011 6:05:47 PM
Are you trying to say that Apple does an incredible job for having such sh*tty components, because you agreed there's better performance from a mac. That can be observed as fact regardless of the quality of the parts.
I think the main difference in the two platforms lies more with code than hardware anyways. If you read the difference between ASCII and Binary code it seems to be in favor of Binary for faster processing because of a lack of error handling written into the code.
@ Jawknee: Here's the thing, and honestly, the brilliance in their design. They under clock parts, so that they don't overheat or fail. Thus allowing them to last longer. I didn't say the machines were junk, I simply said the parts were substandard. To be honest, I had friends in the late 90's early 00's with still functioning Mac II's. But, for the price paid for those items, those poor parts, a much more quality machine could've been purchased. You know what I mean? I personally have a problem with that tactic. I think it's underhanded, and I refuse to support it. That's really where my dislike of Apple comes from. And in that regard, looking at it in that view…if the parts aren't worth the premium…what are you paying for? The shiny box. That's what I meant when I said that.
You're right, most consumers don't care. But, I do. And, I really hate seeing people being used without their knowledge. I know, you don't really look at it at that way, and that's ok. I just won't allow myself to be used in that fashion. To be fair though, I won't buy prebuilt PC's Mac or Windows based, anymore. They all have a price premium you pay, Apple simply has a higher premium, and no option of building your own.
As for the Wii, well, look, I'm not trying to deny a company their due profits. But how much is enough? In late 2006, the Wii cost $158.30 to manufacture. By April of 2009, that had been reduced by ~%45. I was off, by the way. Thinking that at launch the Wii probably cost around $250…it didn't. So, by 2009, the Wii cost under $100, around ~$88 to produce. That just doesn't jive with me. Which you could probably guess considering my issues with Apple =)
But, I also realize I'm kinda crazy at times, so I don't blame people for their choices. I really don't. Sometimes I feel compelled to clear the air on certain things, because I simply hate seeing the wrong information being tossed around in discussions. Yeah, it's part of my crazy. Can't stop it. Just see it…and have to say something. It's actually really wierd. hah. But, at least I'm getting better at explaining my position. I've had my moments in the past (lookin at you Highlander), where personal preference gets the better of simply the facts, and takes the entire discussion down the wrong path. So, thanks for talking about it with me. Appreciate the civil discourse.
@ Tes: Erm, no, I didn't say there's better performance from a Mac, I said the parts are underclocked in order to extend the life of substandard parts, bought on the cheap. And yes, it is a very brilliant strategy, as long as people are willing to turn a blind eye to it, or aren't aware. I'm just not willing to do that.
The other problem is, having lived in a house where building PC's is the norm, for as long as I did. I also demand that my PC's be customizable from top to bottom, because that's what I'm used to. Anything less, makes me angry lol. Hell, look at how much I go ape$hit when a game is announced without dedicated servers. If you've not noticed, I'm sure any number of folks here could corroborate that one. Heh. Yes, I'm a strange one 😉
Btw, I know this site isn't about Mac vs PC, or PC vs Console, and sorry to be taking up so much space with this discussion (Mainly talking to you Ben). As I said, sometimes I just can't stop myself from saying something. So, I apologize for everyone having to scroll through my novels to get to the rest of the comments.
No problem. I enjoy reading your posts and enjoyed the civil exchange. 🙂
I agree with Mornelithe and Jawknee, many people don't care about build quality, especially in NA, want proof? I give you exhibit A, the Xbox 360.
Also, why make something (example an iPhone) that won't last more than two or three years when people always need to get the latest and greatest phone when their current contract expires. As I see it, why not have it programmed to fail when the contract expires, just gives that person a good excuse to buy the latest version!
Actually my first generation iPhone still works fine. The only reason I upgraded was because AT&T wouldn't implement my employee discount unless I had a 3G or newer. So…yea, iPhone's last longer than 3 years. My 3G would still be working fine had I not dropped it without it's case. Thus I needed to get a new one because it was broken.
You cannot compare Apple products to the Xbox 360. I have never had to return a piece of Apple hardware 3 months after buying it and Apple's hardware failure rate is well within the normal % of technology hardware failures.
I never said most people don't care about build quality. I said knowing what each component costs and how much the company paid for vs what they are selling it for or how they clock in when being tested is what matters little to people as long as the given piece of hardware serves the intended purpose and people feel they are paying a fair price for what they are getting. I will take Morn's word for it about Apple's tactics but as I said, my experience with Apple products as of the last 15 years has been excellent. Their iMac's serve my wife's work purposes as well as my music editing purposes and serves those purposes little to no trouble.
And don't generalize about NA. If we really didn't care about build quality we wouldn't choose Honda's and Toyota's over GM's and Ford's or Gibson and Fender's over Ibanez and Yamaha, etc.
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/15/2011 10:08:59 PM
@ Jawknee: They absolutely serve their purpose dude, definitely agree, I was actually brought up in a situation where my mother was a Mac-head, and my Father a DOS/Windows guy, who did that stuff for a living.
Can you even FATHOM, the fight that I was born into? Oh…my…god. It was even worse than you can imagine, mainly because they divorced when I was 3 months old, and not in the nice we went separate ways, kind of separation lol.
I used to use Mac's constantly at my mom's house, and PC at my dad's…so I'm definitely familiar with the brand. I just never caught the Apple craze like so many people have.
Definitely wasn't until around the time the iphone came out, that I learned as much about Mac's internal makeup as I did. (His IT buddy deconstructed it, so he could buy stock in the companies that supply Mac their internals…that worked well for him).
But, long story short, as long as it suits your purpose that's all that really matters in the end. Although, there's nothing wrong with learning about the competition in the process. =)
I completely agree Mourn. I do remember a time(when I was in grade school and high school) when Apple computers were complete crap. It wasn't until I went to college did I start to see an improvement in their performance. I remember in high school using them for architecture class with AutoCAD. Goodness those computers were pieces of crap. The only useful thing I found in a Mac when I was a kid was playing Cannon-fodder and Oregon Trail. Seems when they started releasing the Mac books they started to improve though.
For me…if I want something do just do office work, Windows and a Vaio suites those needs well. Or as you said, building your own PC is a good option too.
For music and Art, I gotta go with Macs.
EDIT: I should make a correction. Apple has served me well for the last 10 years. Not 15. 15 is an exaggeration. HA
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/18/2011 3:25:58 PM
Was never into nintendo,always a sega fan as a kid….then i stabbed my 1st zombie to death in RE on ps1 and since that moment my desire to play with cute mushrooms or clouds with smiles & racing hedgehogs disappeared forever.
I'm sure nintendo will come up with a few good ways to make wii u stand apart from other consoles but i won't be buying one.
Now if nintendo brought out a game where the player could chainsaw his way through the mushroom kingdom and stomp on little kuppas then i'd be in!
My feelings exactly. Same here.
I had a NES, but only because that's all that was out at the time.
I have owned every Sega and Sony system since then.
I'm sure Mario games are still a blast if you like rescuing the princess for the 1000th time and beating up Bowser again and again. But sorry, not for me.
I would rather play a Ratchet game. Platforming, awesome weapons, shooting, cool story, awesome characters and comedy!
I went this same route. I had the NES, dabled a bit with Master system and was a genesis freak. My little cousin had an SNES so I played most of their big titles but I was all SEGA. Once the PS1 came around though it was over
considering nuaghty dog is owned by sony a statement like this is not surprising. as for the stock drop, nintendo just gave a confusing and poor presentation.
nobody picked nintendo to have the impact they have had this generation so i think it would be unwise to underestimate them at this point. i have no doubt the wii u will be popular. i think nintendo is pretty smart company that had a great strategy for this gen that paid off in terms of marketshare vs say the massive uphill struggle sony has faced this gen. it's also interesting to note how both ms and sony are going after this part of the market as well.
the real question is what will the final specs of wii u be, and will nintendo make a serious attempt to pick up hardcore gamers. if it has good specs, and a decent online componet i'll definitely be interested.
Last edited by Excelsior1 on 7/14/2011 11:29:31 AM
I think you're giving Nintendo at least a little bit more credit than it deserves. True, the Wii has been a massive success but the thing is this actually surprised Nintendo in addition to everyone else. As I understand it for them the Wii was essentially a semi-desperate crapshoot that just happened to pay off big time. A last ditch attempt to stay in the console business. And yes Nintendo has had it's share of hits like the NES, the SNES, and the DS. But they've also had their share of misses like the Virtual Boy and the Game Cube. And now it looks to be a distinct possibility that the recently released 3DS is going to fit in the category of Nintendo's missteps.
Nintendo did get off to an awesome start this generation but there is a strong possibility that their good fortune may not last with the Kinect still riding high (for the time being anyway) on it's novelty, the PS3's strong and growing exclusive software library, and the PS Vita being widely applauded and having dozens of developers giving it their support.
And yes skepticism from someone at Sony (Naughty Dog to more specific) is not surprising. However Justin Richmond is far from alone in his skepticism. A lot of other people who are not from Sony are also expressing skepticism about the Wii U, and perhaps rightfully so.
Last edited by Looking Glass on 7/14/2011 11:51:18 AM
Oh, and when I mentioned Nintendo's missteps I forgot to mention the Nintendo 64. That definitely didn't work out all that well if I'm not mistaken.
Last edited by Looking Glass on 7/14/2011 12:02:22 PM
I believe the PS1 sold better but the 64 had better graphics.
@ AlexanderTH3GR8
The Nintendo 64 was more technologically advanced than the PS1. However the N64 was also held back by a poor design choice: using cartridges as opposed to CDs. This caused capacity issues and limited the N64s ability to compete. And the fact that the cartridges were also expensive to produce didn't help either. So no matter which way you cut it the N64 does constitute a misstep by Nintendo.
Last edited by Looking Glass on 7/14/2011 7:58:13 PM
I don't understand all the thumbdowns, the last time I checked my comment is a fact.
@Looking Glass, I know the PS1 used discs and the 64 didn't, that's what I meant that the PS1 sold better.
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 7/15/2011 1:51:27 PM
Really, I didn't know the cartridges where expensive to produce still, I thought it would be cheaper cause of the older tech, when u look at it all the way back from the NES day's
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 7/15/2011 1:56:56 PM
@ AlexanderTH3GR8
The manufacturing process for ROM cartridges was more complex and they were harder and more costly to develop for. This is in turn caused a lot of third party developers to turn away from Nintendo. Squaresoft was among them, who then proceeded to make Final Fantasy VII for the PS1 as opposed to the N64 as originally planned. And we all know how that played out. If you want more details you can look "Nintendo 64" up on wikipedia.
But you really seem to be missing the point. As I said, no matter which way you cut it the Nintendo 64 was one of Nintendo's missteps and it ended up being a rather damaging misstep for Nintendo. Being more technologically advanced than the PS1 does not change that.
Yah I knew what their problem was. Like everything u said, that's why the PS1 sold better.
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 7/16/2011 12:48:25 AM
@ AlexanderTH3GR8
Yup. The PS1 sold better in no small part because Nintendo screwed up with the N64.
I'm not sold either. I've outlined my issues with the Wii U when it was announced last month, but I think Nintendo bit off more than they could chew with this one. The tech wasn't that impressive (yet) and I honestly hate the idea of having more than 1 kind of controller necessary for multiplayer (or even single player) games.
Im sold. Zelda and Metroid in HD? Yea please!
Yeah but that is it Jawk, Mario HD, Zelda HD, and Metroid HD. How can the awkward tablet really offer that much variety in other Multiplatform games? Why shouldn't I get my Multiplat games for PS3? I dunno but I really was anything but impressed with the Wii U reveal.
Are you impressed by the wii u or just the titles you can play?
I'm honestly not impressed by the wii u, I think it's got some cool tech, but only the games make me want the thing. That's not enough for me. Nothing against Nintendo though, they are smart over there.
@ Bigrailer, I am impressed by the Wii U. I think it holds a lot of potential. Nintendo has never let me down. Not even with the Wii. My Wii game collection pales in comparison to my PS3 collection but that's okay because the I have for Wii are quality.
@Beezle, If you want to see what they are doing with some multiplatform titles, google their plans for Batman Arkhem City. Nintendo has also said they plan to invest in 3rd party games with the Wii U. It's something they didn't do with the Wii and they recognize that as a mistake.
I don't really care for multiplatform games on Nintendo platforms anyway. I buy Nintendo hardware to play Nintendo games just like I buy Sony hardware to play Sony published games. As many know already I am an absolute whore when it comes to the Zelda franchise. As long as Nintendo continues to make Zelda games and fun hardware to play them on, I will continue to support them. Some of their best Zelda games are on the DSi which incorporate stylus controls into the game play. I have complete faith Nintendo will do the same when it comes to the Wii U. Nintendo has never let me down. I know some of you hate the Wii, but I don't. I had my fun with it and come the end of the year I'll be dusting that sucker off with glee to play The Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword.
Last edited by Jawknee on 7/14/2011 12:35:34 PM