backtop

Gadgets Nintendo Frowns on Wii Bundle Practices
Marcus Yam (Blog) - December 18, 2007 7:27 PM
Print 65 comment(s) - last by Vinnybcfc.. on Dec 21 at 11:39 AM
Nintendo discourages retailers from making expensive Wii bundles

Believe it or not, the demand for Wii may be even greater than it was last year just after launch. Even with Nintendo making more Wii hardware than ever, retailers are constantly sold out of this holiday’s hottest toy.

Some retailers have decided to capitalize on the current shortage by bundling other items that must be purchased alongside the Wii. At some outlets, buying bundle is the only way to obtain a console.

At time of publication, the only online store to have a Nintendo Wii in stock is Toys “R” Us, which offers the console for sale packed with 10 games – many of which have received less than stellar reviews – for a stunning $699.89. GameStop is pre-selling Wii bundles ranging from $584 to $594 for delivery after Christmas. Other popular bundle items besides games include carrying bags, memory cards and rechargeable batteries.

Besides helping retailers pad their bottom line, such bundles also raise the software-to-hardware attach rate. While every console maker wants higher attach rates, Nintendo is frowning upon the retailer practice of bundles.

"Retailers have already been given feedback that we are not big fans of that. We think it masks some of the price advantage we have versus our competition and, frankly, the consumer should decide what they want," Reggie Fils-Aime, president of Nintendo of America, told Reuters in an interview.

Fils-Aime did not specify if Nintendo threatened any retailers with reduced shipments if sold in bundles, though he did say, "We don't have to remind retailers of the strength we have right now. We are simply making an observation and that reinforces our point quite nicely with retailers."

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Does make you question your Ethics.
By jadeskye on 12/18/2007 7:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
Selling these at work just before chrismas, selling the console for a full £249.97 instead of it's £179.99 RRP (UK).

I wonder how our company gets away with it.

Even worse, it annoys me that people are so desperate they'll give you a signed blank cheque for a Wii.




By darkblueslider on 12/18/2007 7:48:17 PM , Rating: 2
Where exactly do you work? £250? thats crazy!


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By onwisconsin on 12/18/2007 8:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
I feel like I'm stating the obvious, but the value of a Wii goes up as Xmas nears. Add in higher demand than Nintendo expected (low supply) = higher price!

Think about the people that paid hundreds of dollars for a one cent piece of cardboard or a stuffed toy 5-10 years ago...


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By Oroka on 12/19/2007 1:05:24 AM , Rating: 2
Not true, in this area Walmart dropped thier Wii from $299 to $269 during a sale (but then they only had a few and posted signs notifying customers of low stock that would not come close to meeting demand).


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By Spivonious on 12/19/2007 9:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
But the MSRP is $249, not $299.


By oneils on 12/19/2007 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
He might be from Canada. MSRP is 299 here.


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By Mitch101 on 12/19/2007 9:36:57 AM , Rating: 3
During all this Wii Chaos I bought a gamecube. Was $60.00 for the platinum version at Amazon. Plenty of games for the kids and cheap game prices too. Kids will not know the difference when it comes to graphics. Can always run them on the Wii once this price gouging stops.


By OblivionMage on 12/19/2007 7:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Kids will not know the difference when it comes to graphics

That is because there is not really much of a difference to begin with.


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By Sahrin on 12/18/2007 9:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
It's ok for Nintendo to sit pretty with their MSRP - but as any retailer will tell you, when you compete on the marketplace you must actually compete on the marketplace. It's not that the store in the UK is selling above MSRP - it's that the idea of an MSRP is stupid. It allows the manufacturers to make the same profit all the time (actually in most cases gradually increase the profit over time) and puts pricing pressure on the retailers.

In this instance, the price problem is MORE Nintendo's failure to respond to the market and less the retailer's fault for raising the price. If demand for Wii's sucked, Nintendo wouldn't drop the price to make up for it, the retailer would be on the hook for the inventory they owned.

(Same goes for Sony and Microsoft, any any manufacturer of anything - not just videogames).

/Economics rant.


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By amanojaku on 12/18/07, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2007 1:00:53 AM , Rating: 5
You've forgotten that the 'S' in MSRP stands for "suggested". A vendor is free to adjust that price however they wish, and that means the price can rise as well as fall.

There are some contractual cases where a manufacturer binds vendors to specific prices, but in most cases that only prevents them from lowering the price, not raising it...and as far as I know, no such arrangement exists with the Wii in any case.


By BMFPitt on 12/19/2007 9:39:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Imagine buying a $100 (or whatever) Wii for $1,000 because stores knew people would pay it!
Because that's the job of eBay?


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By Anonymous Freak on 12/19/2007 1:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imagine buying a $100 (or whatever) Wii for $1,000 because stores knew people would pay it!

Yes, that's called "supply and demand", and is the core of the idea we call "capitalism". As long as it's not a product that is required for life, health, or safety, I have no problem with it.
quote:
The MSRP creates a standard price across all competitors who are then free to discount at will.

Except manufacturers are lobbying to get the authority to ENFORCE MSRP as the minimum price. Not the maximum. The idea of MSRP was that a single retailer would charge different customers different prices. You look rich? $1000 for a Wii. You don't? $250, plus an attempt at bundling games.

As long as a retailer sells the product at the same price to EVERYONE, I have no problem. If Best Buy wants to sell a Wii at $300, fine. They can sell it for $300. If GameStop wants to sell it for $500, fine. If Toys R Us wants to sell it for $1000, be my guest. Free market capitalism is about the CONSUMER determining the price through supply and demand. If you don't want to pay $1000, then don't!


By pomaikai on 12/19/2007 3:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
eBay defines capitalism usually. You can put a wii up for $10000, but if no one wants it for that price no one buys it. Put a wii on ebay with a starting bid of $1 and see how high it goes. Thats how supply and demand works. If there is a shortage people will bid it pretty high trying to win it(possibly $1000). It would not go for under MSRP at this point in time. The stupid people are the ones who start out at a rediculous price and never sell it.


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By wallijonn on 12/19/2007 10:02:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
as any retailer will tell you, when you compete on (sic) the marketplace you must actually compete on (sic) the marketplace.


Then why can't I find a PS3 or 360 "on sale"? Why can't the marketplace, supply and demand, mass production, dictate a price? Because the old economic models aren't being adhered to, which is why MS, Sony, Nintendo, et. al., can dictate minimum resell prices. Price fixing.

The stores that are selling bundles are doing nothing but gouging the consumer. Pure and simple.

quote:
If demand for Wii's sucked, Nintendo wouldn't drop the price to make up for it, the retailer would be on the hook for the inventory they owned.


Which is why Sony lowered their prices on the PS3. Even now there are plenty of PS3s to go around. The big stores buy in bulk at set prices and they basically make a few bucks on each sale. When their inventory doesn't move they can either have a sale (which they are not allowed to do) or they can stop buying new stock. Then the Sony factory comes to grinding halt.

That hasn't been the case with Nintendo, is it? They have ramped up production and they still can't meet demand. They could have a second party make more consoles, but then they may have the problem of quality control.

One analyst has said that due to Nintendo not meeting demand that they will lose millions in sales to Sony and MS.

How is that bad?


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By omnicronx on 12/19/2007 10:20:03 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Because the old economic models aren't being adhered to, which is why MS, Sony, Nintendo, et. al., can dictate minimum resell prices. Price fixing.
God damn Microsoft and Sony! Those bastards are fixing the price of their consoles below what it costs to make them. They must be making a killing!

.....The only company that makes money off of console sales is Nintendo, Microsoft loses around $50 per console, and Sony loses even more. Just because you do not agree with their prices, does not mean they are fixing them.

Moral of the story is, do some research before you make such a statement.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2007 10:23:51 AM , Rating: 4
> "Just because you do not agree with their prices, does not mean they are fixing them."

Even worse, the OP doesn't seem to understand what "price fixing" even is. It's not the setting of the price of your own product, its an agreement between you and your competitors to set prices at a certain level.


By Sahrin on 12/19/2007 11:19:41 AM , Rating: 1
Then why can't I find a PS3 or 360 "on sale"? Why can't the marketplace, supply and demand, mass production, dictate a price? Because the old economic models aren't being adhered to, which is why MS, Sony, Nintendo, et. al., can dictate minimum resell prices. Price fixing.

...You're putting the cart before the horse. Retailers set their prices at the levels they do because Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo legitimize an artificial price floor by setting an MSRP. Retailers wouldn't be in a position to "not-compete" without such a floor. Prices aren't fixed because retailers choose not to move their prices, they are fixed because Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo are using their monopoly to control prices and protect large retailers from competitors. (Imagine if Mom&Pop Electronics retailer decided "we will offer Wii's at 20% of MSRP" - BestBuy & Co would likely cry foul, because it would damage their sales and THE REAL PROBLEM would lower their sales allocation as Mom&Pop Elec. would earn more inventory by selling more inventory (this is where retailers compete, not for sales but for manufacturer inventory). Nintendo responds by setting a price floor, de facto or otherwise, and prevents stores from competing with each other and protects the interests of large companies (not the consumer or the market). You've got to understand WHERE the competition is supposed to be taking place - from Nintendo's perspective, the competition should be taking place in the distribution channel; from the retailers' perspective it should take place in the marketplace. Nintendo, by setting a public price is interfering with the market to protect the distribution channel.

The stores that are selling bundles are doing nothing but gouging the consumer. Pure and simple.

I'm sorry to use such strong language, but this is idiocy. Price gouging doesn't exist. It's nonsense. The only REASONABLE argument you can make for price fixing is in absolute necessity situations like food, shelter, clothing - yet this is where "price gouging" is the most rampant (2 dollars for a quarter pound of beef when the whole cow would cost less than $200? A pair of socks for $3? An apartment for over $5 million? My point isn't that necessity retailers are gouging, it's that we've decided by adopting a market system that the market will determine the price. Interfering with the price is interfering the market - which destroys the very competition the market requires to survive.

Which is why Sony lowered their prices on the PS3. Even now there are plenty of PS3s to go around. The big stores buy in bulk at set prices and they basically make a few bucks on each sale. When their inventory doesn't move they can either have a sale (which they are not allowed to do) or they can stop buying new stock. Then the Sony factory comes to grinding halt.

That hasn't been the case with Nintendo, is it? They have ramped up production and they still can't meet demand. They could have a second party make more consoles, but then they may have the problem of quality control.

One analyst has said that due to Nintendo not meeting demand that they will lose millions in sales to Sony and MS.

How is that bad?

I'm sure you were making a point w.r.t. price gouging and market economics - but if that's the case, I don't see it. Basically, you supported my argument as far as I can tell. Please clarify this point and I will be happy to respond if I can.


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By masher2 (blog) on 12/19/2007 1:03:54 AM , Rating: 5
> "Does make you question your Ethics...."

Are you actually suggesting it is somehow "unethical" for a vendor to have the freedom to set prices for the products they sell?

We're not exactly talking about sales of fresh water and gasoline after a hurricane here...it's a ****** game console, not a neccesity of life. If you don't like the price, don't buy it.


By omnicronx on 12/19/2007 10:28:32 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
it's a ****** game console, not a neccesity of life.
I have friend who needs a daily dose of endorphines, what if he can't get it, video games could be his only hope! Would that make it necessity?

...I'll go sit in a corner now..


RE: Does make you question your Ethics.
By AlexWade on 12/19/2007 8:20:07 AM , Rating: 1
Welcome to capitalism. Everything is priced for what it will sell for. Low supply + high demand = higher prices. Conversely, as was the case for the PS3, High supply + low demand = lower prices. If you don't want to pay the price, don't buy it. If enough people do that, demand drops along with prices.


By Sahrin on 12/19/2007 1:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted, you understand the fundamentals better than your detractors.


Yeah right!
By timmiser on 12/19/2007 12:19:58 AM , Rating: 3
Nintendo frowns on the bundles?? Yeah, and I've got some ocean front property for sale in Arizona! First of all, this has been going on for over a year now, and now they publicly say "they frown on it". Sorry Nintendo, I don't buy it. If they were really concerned, they would have put a stop to it months ago but I guess all that extra revenue from forcing the customers to purchase more than they need, is just to difficult to resist so now they can just "frown" on the practice.

Most of all, I love how they make the retailer out to be the bad guy who is making all the money on this practice but they fail to point out that most of these bundles do not exceed the MSRP of all the items in the bundle. The retailers and Nintendo are both profiting equally.




RE: Yeah right!
By ZavyZavy on 12/19/2007 2:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, Nintendo frowns on unofficial bundles.

Here’s an example why: Retailers could bundle 10 games with a Wii; 10 third party games (I can see Reggie getting peeved at that).

There are other points like the demand push inflation of the console’s price and the price masking that make it look as expensive as the other consoles. Nonetheless, Nintendo wants to sell lots of its software too and retailer made bundles reduce the effectiveness of their software marketing campaigns.


RE: Yeah right!
By michal1980 on 12/19/2007 2:13:29 PM , Rating: 1
yes but even with 10 3rd party games. Those games would pay a fee to nintendo for playing on the Wii.


RE: Yeah right!
By Vinnybcfc on 12/21/2007 11:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
Not much of a fee, the negatives (Costs around the same as a 360) out weigh the benefits for Nintendo


RE: Yeah right!
By kelmon on 12/19/2007 2:58:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm curious as to how you see Nintendo would "put a stop to it". As has already been noted, retailers are pretty much free to do what they want in terms of the price they sell a console for once they have bought it from Nintendo so I don't think there is much Nintendo can do about the practice.

It is, of course, correct that the practice is both bad and makes it damned difficult at times to buy a Wii without a bundle of games that you aren't interested in. Thankfully there didn't seem to be a problem doing this in Belgium but most places I looked at in the UK were bundling if they had stock.


Here's what Nintendo should frown upon
By thesafetyisoff on 12/19/2007 1:11:53 AM , Rating: 4
Retail employees grabbing the Wiis before they get to the shelves, and scalping them on eBay. Seriously, it's just like trying to get concert tickets.

I called Walmart every day for 2 weeks to see if Wiis were being delivered. When they finally arrived, I was told on the phone that 8 had been received. I was at the store in 10 minutes, and was then told that "6 had arrived, and 2 had been sold already." But there were only 2 left on the shelf. WTF?

Anyway, I was glad to get one. Thought about buying the other one and selling it for profit, but decided to let some other lucky dad get one for his kids. Hopefully it didn't go to some eBay scalper.




By ancient46 on 12/19/2007 1:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Employees at my store are required to make purchases when they are not working or face disciplinary action. Every item you buy must be on the shelf and available to all comers. Most of the 30 Wiis we got yesterday were sold to customers who were lining up before the store opened just to wait and see if they were delivered that day. Yes, there were lines every day for the past few weeks just to see if we would receive a shipment. To ensure all customers (including employees) got an equal chance to get one, our manager brought every one to the floor and sold the entire shipment to the waiting customers personally.


For those having trouble...
By Hawkido on 12/19/2007 4:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
understanding why Nintendo says they don't like bundling...

Take this scenario:

Santa: What do you want for Christmas little Jimmy?

Jimmy: I want the new Metroid and the new Ratchet and Clank Game.

Dad: (Shankes his head and holds up one finger to Santa)

Santa: (Taking his Que from Dad) Well, Jimmy I will see if I can get you one of those. Ho Ho Ho

</End Scenario>

Now Dad has to go get what he needs for either the new Ratchet and Clank game or the new Metroid game.

PS3 + R&C = $460 + Tax
Wii Bundle w/10 games (Metroid is not one of them) + Metroid = >$800!!!

Now why is Nintendo upset?
Your response is yeah but Wii's are still selling out so why does it matter?
Well middle of next year PS3 will actually be hiting its first real stride with good games, affordable prices, and Hi-Def proliferation will drive it as a BR player. Once a household has a game system the demographic shrinks that will buy a second. Next year the Wii will have lost alot of it's "Ohhhh!" Factor. The Graphics of the Wii are not Hi Def, and the hardware is not particularly advanced. The Wii was a stop gap piece of hardware (brilliant move BTW), but by the end of 2008 the PS3 will be the big seller as the price will be $300 then. So Nintendo will have to develop the Uus or whatever to replace the Wii.

What about the 360? What about it? It's sales are already starting to collapse. By next year people will be looking for the next big thing...the 360 has been out for nearly 3 Christmases. What is new about it? Might as well buy your kid an Atari 2400. "What?!? It's not old compared to an antique Car! Come'on! Electronics gain value every year they get older don't they??!?!?"

The Wii doesn't have alot of life in it because the HD initiative will crush it next year. Everyone will want something to take advantage of their new 42" 1080P HDTV. The Wii just won't cut it... unless you want all your Mii's to look Sumo.

So all this just to say, Nintendo doesn't want the sale price of the Wii to look so high that the PS3 looks like a better deal. "But the Wii is $249!! *Waaah*" Find a Wii for $249... "But the MSRP... *WAHHH*" Yeah, find an nVidia 8800 GT for MSRP. "*Wahhh*" That's what I thought.

If someone buys a PS3 for Christmas 2007 thy probably will NOT buy a Wii. If they already have a Wii, they will probably buy a PS3 either this Christmas or next. Cause Daddy likes games and HD movies. And fall 2008 either dual format will be out or the War will still be going on. Plus you can buy a HDdvd for $50 next year at Christmas, so what does it matter.

(Sometimes too low of a price will spell the doom of a product, HD-DVD sounds like the cheap bastard technology, and BluRay sounds like the quality brand name. Plus alot of people still attribute quality to Sony, (I don't much think that anymore, they seem like high priced average components)




RE: For those having trouble...
By omnicronx on 12/19/2007 6:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
By the time the ps3 sells for $300, both entry level HD-DVD and Blue-ray players will be sub 150. As time goes on the ps3 at $300 may not look as good as a high def player at 100-150$.


RE: For those having trouble...
By Hawkido on 12/20/2007 10:00:44 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with your pricing forcast of BR players

But most households will only have one nice HDTV in it. So they will not have more than one HD Player of the same type (HD, or BR).

So whatever the cost of a BR player may be, the purchaser would also see that as a discount on a PS3.

Future costs (pure conjecture):
BR Player = $100
PS3 = $300

No one would buy both, unless they had 2 HDTV's and that might be a few more years before market penetration gets that deep. So, if they buy only one of the 2 and they also want to play HD games (assuming they are not in love with the 360 games, or just don't care) then the PS3 looks $100 less expensive. For those who can't see how, lookit this way: If you buy the BR player firt then next year buy the PS3 the PS3 may be $50 cheaper in a year but I cannot see it at $200 by Xmas 2009. But, if he buys the PS3 at that time then they already have both and no need to buy hardware next year they can concentrate on media for watching/playing. (This is making the bold assumption that the PS3 hardware holds-up that long... (First run PS2's sure didn't, remember the Drive failures?!?)


who cares
By rudy on 12/18/2007 10:34:43 PM , Rating: 4
If you don't like the price don't buy it, we let OPEC get away with it why can't ToysRus




Nintendo's thoughts
By gmw1082 on 12/18/2007 9:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
The retailers found a way to make more profit off the Wii than us. This has to be stopped.




Bundling Sucks, But It's Nothing New
By wempa on 12/19/2007 12:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, bundling is a load of crap, but it happens all the time. It's annoying to NOT be able to get something you want unless you get a lot of stuff you DON'T want. Cable companies get away with it constantly. To get the only 5-10 channels you really watch, you have to pay for 50 that are total garbage. This Wii bundling is very similar. The difference here is that you'll eventually be able to get one easily without getting ripped off.




This is why..
By GhandiInstinct on 12/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: This is why..
By elpresidente2075 on 12/18/2007 8:11:49 PM , Rating: 5
Don't forget cheap fun! This is why the Wii is better than all it's competition. Nintendo realizes that people just want to have fun. They don't want to have to "make an investment in their entertainment needs" or anything of the like.

Besides, you can't play WarioWare Smooth Moves on a PS3...


RE: This is why..
By Legolias24 on 12/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: This is why..
By Legolias24 on 12/18/07, Rating: -1
RE: This is why..
By kelmon on 12/19/2007 3:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
You see the problem is this - the graphics for the Wii are "good enough" and there comes a point when adding more graphics doesn't contribute much to the game. Honestly, that happened in the last generation and this is the reason why the PS3 and 360 don't interest me much - same games but prettier graphics just means that it's the same game. I don't think Wii owners are "touchy" about the graphics since there's nothing to be "touchy" about - it's more a shrug of the shoulders since no one cares. Do you honestly think that anyone is playing games on the Wii and thinking "hey, if only this game had better graphics it would be so much better"?

I don't think that anyone thinks that Apple's products are perfect since you will almost never see outright praise for the products - there is always room for improvement and features/functions that you expected. It's just that people on the outside often see problems that aren't there or which aren't really that much of a problem and are annoyed when the Apple users don't see them. Perspective is everything - if it bothers you then don't be surprised if it doesn't bother everyone because they may well have different priorities.


RE: This is why..
By kelmon on 12/19/2007 3:15:18 AM , Rating: 2
You see the problem is this - the graphics for the Wii are "good enough" and there comes a point when adding more graphics doesn't contribute much to the game. Honestly, that happened in the last generation and this is the reason why the PS3 and 360 don't interest me much - same games but prettier graphics just means that it's the same game. I don't think Wii owners are "touchy" about the graphics since there's nothing to be "touchy" about - it's more a shrug of the shoulders since no one cares. Do you honestly think that anyone is playing games on the Wii and thinking "hey, if only this game had better graphics it would be so much better"?

I don't think that anyone thinks that Apple's products are perfect since you will almost never see outright praise for the products - there is always room for improvement and features/functions that you expected. It's just that people on the outside often see problems that aren't there or which aren't really that much of a problem and are annoyed when the Apple users don't see them. Perspective is everything - if it bothers you then don't be surprised if it doesn't bother everyone because they may well have different priorities.


RE: This is why..
By StevoLincolnite on 12/19/2007 3:26:51 AM , Rating: 2
The way I look at it, If you are so worried about graphics over gameplay, Get a PC Not a PS3/360- Crysis looks Fantastic on SLI 8800 Ultras, and will kick most consoles in the rear, Graphics wise, AA + AF Turned up? Yes please!
The Wii is a great fun party console with great first party titles, And some 3rd party ones also.

I personally have a Wii and a PC (Although not a high-end one) and I would honestly have to say that Metroid and Cyris are the best flapping games for a very long time.
Next I'm getting a 360 for Christmas so I can finally jump into Halo 3 :)


RE: This is why..
By kelmon on 12/19/2007 7:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, sorry for the double post - not sure how that happened.


RE: This is why..
By Legolias24 on 12/19/2007 3:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
First, the Apple User/Wii User comparison was meant as more of a joke, hence why I used the following emoticon :P at the end of the comment. I'm fully aware that everyone is going to have a different perspective/opinion on something, i.e. I don't have a compelling enough reason to buy a Wii whereas I felt the opposite about a 360 or PS3, but other people on this forum disagree with me. The only reason I made the "Mac/Wii user comparison" is because I've spoken with a few mac users as well as heard some stories about mac users getting all indignant that you made a negative comment about Apple. (my brother-in law and sister nearly flipped out on my while I was driving because I had read a review that the new Apple OS (I think it's called Leopard) was not any better then Vista. :P I'm not a Mac user so I can't say how true this review is but it was their reaction that I found funny)

You said that no-one cares about the graphics of the Wii and I'd agree with you if I didn't get modded down for saying the PS3 and 360 had nicer graphics; it is a statement of fact. Obviously someone didn't like that I said it so I got modded down. I wasn't attacking the Wii directly, I was merely using a similar style of arguing as the OP used: "you can't play a really fun game like WarrioWare Smooth Moves on the PS3 or 360". Yeah that person is right, I can't play that game. But I'm not crying over it because I have other graphically beautifuli games that I am enjoying that they can't play on the Wii (which I'm assuming they are not crying over).

And as for the person who said I should get a PC if I want great graphics to play games like Crysis...I would if I could afford to. I know without a doubt that a PC has the greatest graphical potential as a gaming system then all the consoles. But right now, I can't afford a PC that can pump out those graphics. I will at somepoint in the next 6 months (I'm thinking about building my own rig soon...need to start saving $$$) but right now, I have a PS3, my roomate has a 360 and those will be more than enough to hold me over until I build my PC.


RE: This is why..
By Chaser on 12/19/2007 11:23:17 AM , Rating: 1
At least you had the common sense to include the 360 in your statement. Had you not you would have been marked down to a -6.


RE: This is why..
By Alexstarfire on 12/18/2007 11:32:29 PM , Rating: 3
True, we can't play them on the Wii, but we can play Gears of War and Bioshock on the computer. You have to have a 360 to play Uncharted though. BTW, better graphics doesn't mean a better game. It can make you feel more immersed, but it won't fix any gameplay problems. Hope Gears of War is better on the PC than on the 360. It was pretty good, but not awesome. I think a mouse might fix that, but IDK.


RE: This is why..
By BansheeX on 12/19/2007 7:05:09 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Don't forget cheap fun! This is why the Wii is better than all it's competition. Nintendo realizes that people just want to have fun. They don't want to have to "make an investment in their entertainment needs" or anything of the like.


First of all, there is nothing cheap about "$300". You can get a 360 for cheaper now than a Wii, and the PS3 is only $100 more. Second of all, the Wii is selling better because it is the first system ever marketed to non-gamers. These people FAR outnumber traditional gamers and the sales are showing it. Do you see the PS3 getting used in retirement homes? You see mom and dad playing Orange Box? No. The only control scheme these kinds of people would EVER use is an airmouse. Buttons are too complex. They are are also emulating Apple's style and marketing strategy to great financial success (they don't even put "Nintendo" on the box graphic anymore). Wii third party support is atrocious and Wii games actually have lower scores on average than the other systems. So this correlation that because Nintendo decided to use cheaper hardware, gameplay is now more capable than it was before is just a laughable idea. By that rationale, games released today on the Gamecube and PS2 should be capable of more fun than the Wii because it's cheaper hardware. Wha? You obviously have no understanding of how development works, or how technological progress introduces new possibilities while retaining all old ones. I'd also like to attack the idea of "casual" gaming. Is Super Mario Galaxy any more casual than Mario 64 was? Is the new Metroid more casual than the gamecube ones? No. You can casually play just about any game. Where did this term come from all the sudden? Enjoy your Wii, but stop spouting nonsense.


RE: This is why..
By inperfectdarkness on 12/19/2007 11:38:12 AM , Rating: 2
no.

because nintendo made a console that brings a whole new demographic into the market.....THAT makes gameplay more capable.

the fact that you can find such "shovelware" for the wii (in comparison to other systems) is testament to how easy it is to develop for the Wii. it used to be the ps2 with the glut of shovelware (x5 for the ps1). given equal console development times...the company that spends more time on making the system programmer-friendly is the console that usually wins. that's why the ps1 won. that's why the ps3 fails.

i've yet to see a truly convincing argument for having more than a Wii and a powerhouse pc. i don't need to play every FPS that comes down the pike...and the good ones are all on PC first and foremost.

i agree with nintendo on the bundles. not everyone wants a bunch of crappy software with their hardware purchases. *cough* windows vista *cough*. the truly free-market system doesn't have bundles. you have systems at their respective prices. you have games at their respective prices. the end consumer decides.

bottom line:

i like nintendo's 1st party & exclusives way better than microsoft's or sony's. that's what really matters. nintendo has won this war since 1985.


RE: This is why..
By michal1980 on 12/19/2007 3:38:58 PM , Rating: 1
You would put up mario, mario kart, and zelda vs:

halo?
finaly fantasys?
Grand theft auto?
Gran turismo?
metal gear solid?

Theres more, but sorry. 1st part nintendo 1st parties are really stuck in the 80's. Good titles, yes, but I wouldn't say they are better or worse then the competition.

And while none gamers are buying the wii, what are they playing? overwhelming Wii-sports, maybe wii play. Mario and zelda are 2 decent titles that sold well for the wii, metrido for the wii sold terribly for how large the wii base is.

And while graphics dont make the game.

You'd be crazy to just dismiss them right of the back. You take your gimick easy controls.

Those can be replicated if needed on other systems.

Games like GT5, even the demo or prolgue, Forza racing2. COD3, etc, Halo, Ratch and Clank, Uncharted, Mass Effect, etc. All great games, with GREAT GRAPHICS. That the wii will NEVER be able to pull off.

The combination of both graphics and gameplay is what VIDEO games are about.


RE: This is why..
By inperfectdarkness on 12/20/2007 3:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
you're comparing apples to oranges. zelda, mario, mario kart don't have counterparts anywhere NEAR their quality on any system (let alone pc). for instance, nintendo doesn't make any fps's. don't compare their games to any fps's. show me the closest 3d-platformer competition mario has, and i'll show you a second-rate game.

halo, cod4, cod3...thanks. i'll play ut3 & orange box on pc. if i get bored, i can get bioshock too.

final fantasy? please! i'll stick to the sprite-based rpg's. ff7+ are all too involved and task-saturated for me to enjoy. and i can always get into WOW or COH/COV & everquest 2.

i don't need a driving sim (ala forza, turismo). rest assured if i did, i'd be playing it on pc too.

i'm not bashing the other systems. i'm just saying there's little compelling reason for anyone to own both a pc AND a ps3/360. a Wii makes a much better, rational counterpart to a PC. you're not going to have enough time to play every game out there. my contention is that between the PC and a Wii, i have the best available to me...rather than 1/2 way having both.

p.s. if fps's are SO GREAT on consoles...then why does something like ut2k4 have such unparalelled support on pc? (i.e. total conversion mods, gameplay mods, rpg mods, etc) ut2k4rpg is a fine example. you'll never find that on a ps3 or 360...not even close.


RE: This is why..
By BansheeX on 12/21/2007 9:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
zelda, mario, mario kart don't have counterparts anywhere NEAR their quality on any system (let alone pc). for instance, nintendo doesn't make any fps's. don't compare their games to any fps's. show me the closest 3d-platformer competition mario has, and i'll show you a second-rate game.


Ico and Shadow of the Colossus were great original adventure games, most people consider Crash Team Racing for the PS1 to be better than Mario Kart 64, and the PS1/PS2 has assloads of great 3d platformers to choose from if that's your cup of tea: Rayman, Ratchet, Crash, Spyro, Medieval, etc. But when you live in Nintendo-only land, you tend to discredit games from anyone else as not being incapable of anything better than average.

quote:
final fantasy? please! i'll stick to the sprite-based rpg's.


So why does Nintendo come out with new hardware for you to buy then? If graphics don't matter, why are you so eager to dump your gamecube and shell out $250 for Nintendo? It'll be interesting to see what your reaction is on the next forced obsolescence.

quote:
i'm not bashing the other systems. i'm just saying there's little compelling reason for anyone to own both a pc AND a ps3/360.


You have no idea what you're talking about. There are loads of titles and even entire genres that never show up on the PC. Take fighting games, for instance. Have fun playing Soul Calibur IV on the PC. Oh, wait, it's not coming out for it because fighting games need gamepads and the PC is unable to guarantee a standard gamepad or a gamepad-owning userbase. Doh!


RE: This is why..
By ZaethDekar on 12/18/2007 8:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Are you just jealous because you havn't gotten a Wii yet? j/k

I have a Wii, and have played the 360 and I have to say I enjoy controlling a car on Pro Street with the Wii Mote more then I enjoy it on the 360. Sure its not as pretty but... at least it feels more real.

Also, you can use the WiiMote on the PC just like the 360 controller. I just enjoy the WiiMote more.


RE: This is why..
By ImSpartacus on 12/18/2007 8:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
The market for the ps3 and wii and different. Not only price, but audience has a big point in sales. Children aimed video games and generally going to be cheaper than hard core video games. And cheap isn't always automatically bad. I personally would pay more for an xbox 360 than a ps3, but i still wouldnt pay 600$.


RE: This is why..
By Alexstarfire on 12/18/2007 10:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the actual market may be different for each system, but not only does that not mean that the same person can't own both consoles, but it also doesn't mean that the target market is different. I think you fail to realize that both, actually all three, of the console manufacturers wants every house to have THEIR console. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. Granted, they may go about it in different ways, such as providing two different types of gameplay.


RE: This is why..
By Polynikes on 12/18/2007 8:26:38 PM , Rating: 3
Just you wait, someday the Wii's motion sensitive controller tech will become standard in consoles. The next Xbox and PS3 will have some form of it, and although it may not COMPLETELY control the games, it will definitely be a factor. You can only put so many buttons on a controller of a certain size.

Calling the Wii's controller a gimmick is like calling a widescreen monitor's wideness a gimmick. It has a lot of value, whether you like it or not.


RE: This is why..
By Polynikes on 12/18/2007 8:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, I meant next Xbox and Playstation. :P


RE: This is why..
By Legolias24 on 12/18/2007 10:03:56 PM , Rating: 2
Umm...just a quick point of fact, the PS3 already has a bit of motion sensitivity with their controller.

-Legolias


RE: This is why..
By Alexstarfire on 12/18/2007 10:15:10 PM , Rating: 5
Now that, my friend, IS a gimmick.


RE: This is why..
By Legolias24 on 12/18/2007 10:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
LoL, Yes I will agree with you there Alexstarfire :P. Although Naughty Dog incorporated using the SixAxis nicely when Nathan Drake (Uncharted: Drakes Fortune) is walking across logs or other narrow walkways. Using grenades is abit awkward at times but still a nice attempt. :)


RE: This is why..
By knowyourenemy on 12/18/2007 11:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why am I getting the feeling you're only trying to convince yourself?


RE: This is why..
By SirLucius on 12/19/2007 12:34:50 AM , Rating: 3
Actually I have to agree with Legolias. Despite it's gimmicky nature, I think that the SIXAXIS controls have been pretty well-implemented in the games that use it. Save for Lair, the motion controls never overshadow gameplay and are either subtle enough to be effective, or are completely optional and can be ignored. Heavenly Sword made use of the SIXAXIS just enough, while I honestly can't remember whether Ghost Recon 2 had motion controls or not. If it did, I was able to accomplish all the tasks using nothing but the controller.

And while I know I'm in the minority, I actually didn't hate Lair. The controls took some getting used to, but I was able to play through the game just fine and never found the controls to be frustrating or clunky. I actually thought the SIXAXIS was surprisingly responsive. But to each his own I guess.


RE: This is why..
By Brockway on 12/19/2007 1:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
The ps3 bowling is quite fun. You even hold the controller like a bowling ball when you swing it around. Thats probably one of the few games other than Folklore to use it in a non-ridiculously out of context way. A fishing game would work great though.


RE: This is why..
By Spivonious on 12/19/2007 9:16:25 AM , Rating: 2
So I'm going to spend $500 + $60 to play bowling instead of $250 to play bowling?


RE: This is why..
By BansheeX on 12/19/2007 10:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
Correct numbers are $400+$10 for the PS3 and $250-ebayprices for the Wii. That said, if I'm going to bowl, it's going to be real bowling for $1.50 a game at my local lane. Video game bowling is lame and not even close to the real thing.


RE: This is why..
By Polynikes on 12/19/2007 11:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
When you don't have a DD, video game bowling will suffice. Otherwise, I prefer to do it for real.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki