So you are crossing generations?
The Wii has outsold the PS3. I'll give you a while to cry about that
Wii is of the PS2's generation, or didn't you notice?
And PS3 will outsell Wii at the end of the day.
Mwaaaaaahhhh!
Not looking good for the Wii is it?
- Thread starter WeasteDevil
- Start date
Wii is of the PS2's generation, or didn't you notice?
And PS3 will outsell Wii at the end of the day.
Mwaaaaaahhhh!
Only after it gets released in Brazil in 2018
Tech wise, sure.
But it's classed as a this generation machine just a really crap one.
On a side point, the first couple of pages of this thread are interesting.
There's a major talking point I raised that you instantly disagreed with, and we left it more or less as time will tell.
I'll let you find it for yourself, but guess who was right yet again? One day you'll be smart enough to respect my opinion
As long as it means no more Redknapp ads, I couldn't care really
If Nintendo ever puts our a top class system I'd probably buy it.
They did put one out, it was called the SNES.
You didnt like the N64?
Seriously, are you 12?
Why would Nintendo care about unit sales when it is profit per console that matters, and why would it care if the PS3 overtook it when Nintendo itself has moved on to the WiiU?
This discussion about the WiiU not being able to compete if it is technically inferior to its competitors completely ignores precedent. In the last three generations the market leader has been a console that was technically inferior - the PSX was substantially behind the N64, the PS2 was behind Gamecube and far behind the Xbox whilst the Wii pretty much is a Gamecube competing with PS3 and Xbox 360. You could stretch it to four generations by saying the SNES was behind the Mega Drive whilst the NES wasn't exactly a beacon of technical prowess either.
So I don't why it should start not that WiiU will not be able to compete, launching first and significantly so was of great advantage to PSX and PS2, if it gets a very strong line of third party titles, has some great first party games, and utilises the screen to good effect then I'll be surprised if it cannot be caught by the time its competitors come out. It has been five years since a console release, people will be willing to jump at anything if they are waiting a long time for something that is new.
And also remember, the Wii was considered to be a bit of a joke when it was in development, it wasn't until the final weeks before release that a wave of anticipation came out from nowhere for it.
The Gamecube was also more powerful than the PS2 and a decent piece of kit (hampered once again by Nintendo's insistance on making more licensing money).
What has Wii U got to do with this thread, apart from it spelling the doom of of the Wii? This thread has nothing to do with the Wii U!
Not having a DVD player was quite a thing at the time I recall, it also launched somewhat late.
But what ultimately killed at and the Xbox was that the PS2 used its time on the market to itself to great effect - if they didn't release Grand Theft Auto III then it would not have been anywhere near as one sided in that generation.
Nothing to do with that! Being first to market doesn't always go in your favour either. Market is far more interested in price. However, with the Wii vs XB360/PS3, they were really very different markets with a little crossover due to Nintendo 1st party titles - anything with the name "Mario" on it basically.
Very little to do with it apart from disc capacity!
Erm... because it is the successor of the Wii perhaps? In a thread about the Wii you think that would have some bearing.
But it was relevant to the topic at hand because you were talking about overall Wii - PS3 sales which the PS3 if it does it will not do so until long after the WiiU has been released when only fanboys will care as Nintendo will have moved on.
It was important - in the era it was released 2000 - 2005 very few young people will have had their own DVD player and getting one through a console influenced console choices at the time.
It has no bearing to the fact that the Wii failed to live up to what it could have been. The very imminent appearance of Wii U prove the OP to be correct. If Wii was still selling enough hardware and software to keep Nintendo profitable, then you would not be seeing Wii U right now.
So yes, it has feck all to do with the thread.
I didn't bring up PS3 sales, Redlambs did. Get your facts right or shut your mouth!
No it wasn't, because you could buy a DVD player cheaper than a PS2 when it launched. It's like saying those AMSTRAD TVs with a VHS recorder built-in were important.
GTA3 sold what, 7-8 million copies? The PS2 has shifted 150+ million units....
PS2 would have killed any other console that generation regardless of GTA.
So you don't think that the PS2 went on to 'win' the last generation convincing because they set themselves up very strongly before their competitors came to market?
There was no Xbox predecessor, the Gamecube was dormant and the Dreamcast was dead when the PS2 arrived and raised the bar of console games, released some great franchises and built its reputation as a 'must have'. I don't believe launching first is a barometer for success but if it is utilised properly then it can be devasting for the competition.
And this talk that the Wii operates in a different market is absolute nonsense, there is no differentiation except in perception - one game sale for the Wii is one less that can be achieved on any other console and vice versa.
GTA didn't sell PS2s, it's the fact that PS2 sold so well that it got so many exclusive games, thus making it sell even more.
It sold the vast majority of those 7-8 million copies in less than a year giving the PS2 a user base of at least 7-8 million in the western world alone before the competition arrived in a time when consoles did not sell as many as they do now.
It gave the PS2 an absolutely huge lead and built its brand awareness in the west.
PS2 would have sold gang busters in any case. Did Dreamcast win because it was first out of the gate? PS1 wasn't the first out of the gate either.
It's kind of ironic the sort of people who consider themselves 'hardcore console gamers' now, are the same people Sony considered casual gamers back on the PSX/2. That's one of the main reasons the 2 sold so well, and it's something M$ have jumped on the bandwagon with the 360, hence the shift back.
Anyway back to the thread, has the Wii died yet? I mean it was supposed to have 2 years ago.
Anyway back to the thread, has the Wii died yet? I mean it was supposed to have 2 years ago.
If they didn't sell certain game? Ok. How about Mario. Take him out of the equation. How many would have bought the Wii then? Or Xbox. Take away Halo.
That is completely irrelevant as we are talking about teenagers here choosing a console - DVD players were rare at that time due to their cost so a console that had one built in was a big advantage for its producer.
How many teenagers in 2002 do you think when to a electronics store and said 'I want a new console - do I want to buy a PS2, Gamecube or Xbox, or do I want to buy a DVD player for £150?'
How many have a PS3 because of Blu-Ray? How long was the PS3 the cheapest AND best Blu-ray player on the market?
One of my Gamecubes plays dvds. Though it cost a small fortune, so I don't think that counts
Halo was massive for Xbox there is no doubt about that, for a first console from a new developer it was strategically important.
Mario on the Wii is no, it isn't just about how popular a game is, it is its brand image and reputation. The N64 was dying when the PS2 was in its maiden year, there were rubbish games coming out whilst the PS2 brought games on dramatically and GTA3 in terms of the freedom of gameplay it offered was the next-generation version and natural continuation as far as games development goes of Super Mario 64 and what that represented over 16 bit games.
As such beside being a great game it represented the future, it represented what the PS2 was capable of and it helped to create the public image of the PS2 that made it so financially successful.
One of my Gamecubes plays dvds. Though it cost a small fortune, so I don't think that counts
Was that the silver panasonic one?
Cheap isn't a word I'd use to describe the PS3 when it came out.
Not to mention that Blu-ray hadn't attained critical mass yet when it did whilst in 2002 when the Gamecube was released DVDs had supplanted videos a few years before.
Yep the Q.
Fantastic machine and I made my own custom RGB scart lead for it and still use it to this day.
It never made it to Europe did it?
Nintendo really did mess the Gamecube up - why they sold Rare is weird, not that they have done much since.
I imported one through contacts at Nintendo themselves, true multi region too (they actually were JPN/USA unlocked only).
As for the GCN, it was all about the discs sadly. Not only was the size restrictive, they still used the ancient method of strict licensing costs which pissed many a publisher off.
Such a shame since hands down it was the best system to work with and the development comunity on there was something that we'll never see again.
I was looking at importing a Gamecube due to the six month time lag between it arriving in the US and Europe - I ended up getting an American one later on to get releases earlier - like Metroid Prime far ahead of the European release and that animal simulation game that never made it here.
It did start brightly for the Gamecube - I remember seeing the water physics in Wave Race for the first time thinking how amazing they were whilst Rogue Squadron II was a stunner as well, and then Resident Evil was announced as a Gamecube exclusive.
In terms of software it severely lacked action games from what I recall on thinking about it I don't think any games were better than their N64 predecessors.
Factor 5 did amazing work from the off. Their Dolby sound routines and self shadowing techniques were brilliant and released to the community from virtually day one. Great lads they were.
Nintendo heavily banked on Rare too, but when they went tits up and the best guys fecked off, that's why they mugged M$ off for them.
Nintendo heavily banked on Rare too, but when they went tits up and the best guys fecked off, that's why they mugged M$ off for them.
It was a pity Factor 5 didn't do anything more for it, to get as much out of the system on launch day as they did in Rogue Squadron II was extremely well going. With regard to Rare it did seem to be ebbing away based on some of their latter releases on the N64.
Nintendo do have a good track record with second party developers - they would do well to have Retro Studios expand their output considering the job they did on the Metroid reboot which was something very difficult to do.
EDIT: I was trying to think of a third party game for the Gamecube that was far from the Nintendo reputation - Eternal Darkness - now that was a good game.
Metroid prime Trilogy (the Wii pack) are three of the most overlooked console shooters when people think about the best.
Rare fell apart though, but we got the likes of Timesplitters out of the mess, so it wasn't all bad
Rare fell apart though, but we got the likes of Timesplitters out of the mess, so it wasn't all bad
You might not describe it that way but for a long time it was the cheapest and best Blu-ray. That's a quality feature. Especially since a bit later it's main competitor went for a soon-to-be outdated format that didn't even come with the machine.