The question I was asking wasn't the end result of their purchase but can you actually speak for every single owner of a Wii and say without a doubt that they are in fact happy with their purchase.Matthew94 said:
Wii U to be quickly outdated?
- Thread starter dragongit
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I made it clear, nothing Randy said contradicted the anonymous source that this was an underpowered system. All he said was next-generation, which after Wii is established can mean dick all of hardware capability. And the WiiU version will apparently be in development for longer.Davroth said:
What you say about Nintendo is true, but no rationale for two independent developers to tell corroborating lies to gamesindustrybiz and not complain about those GENUINE issues. Yes, look at the interviews at high times of the Wii, when they are mad they say what they are mad about, not lie about the console saying it is bad where it isn't.
"And how will it bite them in the ass? They are protected by their anonymity."
When the journalist find out they've been lied to they won't. They don't like being lied to, they'll publish or just send a letter to Nintendo saying exactly who said this shit.
PS3 is on paper superior hardware, but it is well established how more development time you can get better performance out of the 360. Compare PS3 and 360 versions of Bayonetta.
You've got a short memory. Gamecube hugely underperformed as did Gameboy Advance. There have been changes in Nintendo heirarchy if I am not mistaken and they are known for taking unusual risks.
No what they are doing is NOT dumb. They could very easily rip off millions of people as long as they put on their rose-tinted glasses and buy into any small advantage the WiiU has. But only if everyone if a lot of people buy into hyoe and get something crap, but that wouldn't happen in this industry:
Oh wait, no. If you can get 20+ million people to buy into CoD you can get similar numbers to buy into an overpriced 360 clone (Wii U)
"And you do realize that engines have certain minimum specs, and that they made it clear that the Unreal Engine 4 wont be running on Xbox 360 and PS3."
Got a source on this. Because that sounds wrong.
I never said it was a scam. I was just questioning the validity of saying everyone who bought a Wii was happy with their purchase.him over there said:
All right, I thought that since the argument in question came from the accusation of a scam you were siding with that accusation, my mistake. However while I think that many adults who got it as no more than a toy or a grandma with wii fit probably left it to gather dust most kids I know still love it to this day and are enamoured with Nintendo. Brand loyalty and all that.ultramarine486 said:
Nah, I just worded that poorly.Matthew94 said:
By "undersold by critics", I mean that critics shit on KI:U because of the in-game controls.
(and that laughably useless chunk of plastic didn't help any. Nobody uses that damn thing.)
While problematic to learn (due to the touchscreen), they are very tight once you get used to them. Controls that are problematic at their core will cause problems beyond your ability to adapt (a *lot* of cheap side-scrolling NES games do this).
And the game is apparently becoming a fan-favorite for conventions.
My friends went to ACEN last month, and apparently could find a match of KI:U multiplayer ANYWHERE on the convention floors; even out at the Steak n' Shake down the road from the convention center.
Yeah, but the manner in which it was confirmed was awkward.
They had to quickly add in a line over their official twitter that the Fire Emblem port was real. Seems odd to me when you have an entire segment of E3 devoted to your company's upcoming projects and offerings.
Though I've heard an explanation that suggests that they were saving the Fire Emblem: Awakening announcement for a different convention or Nintendo-sponsored event, but had to make an official statement because Reggie let it slip too soon.
Being fine with what your paying for and making a knowledgeable purchase isn't the same as being happy with that purchase.Matthew94 said:
Credit bothers me because people are dumb enough to attribute false value with Nintendo and imitate them. How can there be any discussion about video games if there is at the centre of it a massive double-standard con.Matthew94 said:
No. The full spec sheets are not available in the store in comparison with the Gamecube and Original Xbox. It's enough that it's a "modern" and "current gen" system that it must be worth a lot of money.
Why are you ignoring EVERYTHING THAT I SAY! I give a detailed explanation of why Wii should not be considered a 7th gen console and how it's sales are irrelevant to the PS3 and 360... and you just parrot the same line as always.
So to refute that Nintendo is a rip off, you post a snide gif gloating about Nintendo printing money... right.
"You saying it over and over again won't change the fact."
Projecting much?
You have IGNORED every one of my points and gloated like a petty child.
I think you guys are arguing semantics. You saying "happy to buy a product" and him saying "Being fine with what your paying for and making a knowledgeable purchase" are essentially the same thing. It essentially means willing to buy. You guys are just being too specific.Matthew94 said:
Your using conjecture to prove that by knowing the specs to the Wii's hardware that people were in fact happy to buy the device. You can't prove that anymore then I can prove that people felt ripped off by buying a Wii because they had knowledge of it's hardware. People were 'willing' to buy a Wii with full knowledge of it's hardware but being willing to do something doesn't mean that they were happy to do so. I'm arguing against the use of emotion to prove something is right rather then facts.Matthew94 said:
I believe Matthew was merely using the term happy to imply willingness. Because why would you willing buy something you weren't happy with? Like I said, semantics.ultramarine486 said:
In this case semantics actually matter since adding the emotion of happiness to the argument leads to a bias in interpretation of the facts. After all if everyone was happy with their purchase then Treblaine must be unreasonable and looking for fault with Nintendo.him over there said:
While that may be true the emotion of someone while purchasing something is irrelevant in whether or not it is a scam or rip so long as knowledge and willingness are present. Matthew's phrasing ultimately comes down to colloquialism.ultramarine486 said:
Not even close to saturation.him over there said:
In the US, for example, there are about 120 million households, but only about 40 million Wiis, i.e. roughly 1 Wii for every 3 households. To say nothing of the fact that the PS2 outsold the Wii more than 3 to 2; the Wii hasn't even outsold the original Playstation yet.
They really gonna be using Radeon 4000 series?
I was using TWO 5750's overclocked in X-fire in my rig until last year, & they still struggled to get 50 FPS with the likes of Metro 2033 & Crysis at anything above 1280x720p. It really irks me when I play a game that noticeably lags, call me obsessive or whatever.
(Yes, I know consoles don't have so much "overhead" for the GUI & OS as they all seem to use some bastardised version of the Linux kernel to boot from, but the difference isn't that big!)
Not that I ever was into Nintendo back in the day(Sega kid!- I dabbled a bit with Mario & coin-ops, oh teh coin-ops) but this saddens me.
Those video cards are already 3 generations behind in GPU terms, with core PC gamers equipping Radeon 7900 & Nvidia GTX 680, etc, I would expect the next gen to at least be able to take full advantage of DirectX 11 graphical wizardry oooooo, shiny....
Looking back a few years, I really regret plopping so much money down for a PS3 now, £500 was(is!) a lot of money, now I barely use the thing save for drunken multiplayer fighting games & a couple of exclusives. At least it doubles as a nice blu-ray player & DVD upscaler for the old HDTV.
We eagerly await your "next gen" game engines.......
Sincerely, PC gaming enthusiasts
(sorry if ranting, it's late & I've been cramming for an impending exam)
I was using TWO 5750's overclocked in X-fire in my rig until last year, & they still struggled to get 50 FPS with the likes of Metro 2033 & Crysis at anything above 1280x720p. It really irks me when I play a game that noticeably lags, call me obsessive or whatever.
(Yes, I know consoles don't have so much "overhead" for the GUI & OS as they all seem to use some bastardised version of the Linux kernel to boot from, but the difference isn't that big!)
Not that I ever was into Nintendo back in the day(Sega kid!- I dabbled a bit with Mario & coin-ops, oh teh coin-ops) but this saddens me.
Those video cards are already 3 generations behind in GPU terms, with core PC gamers equipping Radeon 7900 & Nvidia GTX 680, etc, I would expect the next gen to at least be able to take full advantage of DirectX 11 graphical wizardry oooooo, shiny....
Looking back a few years, I really regret plopping so much money down for a PS3 now, £500 was(is!) a lot of money, now I barely use the thing save for drunken multiplayer fighting games & a couple of exclusives. At least it doubles as a nice blu-ray player & DVD upscaler for the old HDTV.
We eagerly await your "next gen" game engines.......
Sincerely, PC gaming enthusiasts
(sorry if ranting, it's late & I've been cramming for an impending exam)
If you're implying that game budgets won't naturally rise due to more powerful hardware, you're wrong.Matthew94 said:
It's been proven that the jump in game development costs from the PS2/Xbox to the PS3/360 was a dramatic jump [http://www.gamespy.com/articles/108/1082176p1.html]. Specifically PS2/Xbox development costs ranged from $3 million to $5 million, which, adjusted for inflation, ranges from a little over $4 million to a little under $7 million. That doesn't even come close to the average of around $15-30 million that it cost in 2010 to make a PS3 or Xbox 360 game. This study [http://www.develop-online.net/news/33625/Study-Average-dev-cost-as-high-as-28m] states that average game budgets have reached about $18-28 million on average, which isn't a drastic step down from $30 million. Even a supposed developer [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-04-03-next-gen-consoles-mean-increased-development-costs] of the next Xbox is claiming to have trouble with its modelling budget because the technology demands more detailed and accurate models.
That is something to take into concideration. Games are frickin expensive, and don't always pay back their initial development costs. AAA titles usually might, but if this year is any indication fewer companies are making big games, where instead we see a lot more "indie" games come out of the woodworks.
As much as I want the the technology to evolve for games, the development costs might jump again. In a struggling economy too where people aren't spending as much, we may see more companies close down. Games in the next new gen may cost 50million or more, and need to sell over 3 million copies to break even.
I'm conflicted now. I want the tech to evolve, but not at the cost of no actual games coming out. or very few games in between that are nothing but garenteed sellers. Not sure where the industry needs to go from here, or if the economy is a sinking ship they are all going to drown with.
As much as I want the the technology to evolve for games, the development costs might jump again. In a struggling economy too where people aren't spending as much, we may see more companies close down. Games in the next new gen may cost 50million or more, and need to sell over 3 million copies to break even.
I'm conflicted now. I want the tech to evolve, but not at the cost of no actual games coming out. or very few games in between that are nothing but garenteed sellers. Not sure where the industry needs to go from here, or if the economy is a sinking ship they are all going to drown with.