Just to let everyone in allegroland out there know I posted this thread with my Wii.

... ewwww.

I can tell you were "excited"

Then why aren't the characters yellow?

On his side they probably are

Did it take you 45 minutes

I posted on A.cc before from my Wii. It was pretty dull.

Compared to my misreading of the title as "Wii Excitebike", yes, this is pretty dull.

Actually, the new Wii browser is very nice and surfing and typing is a breeze. As demonstrated by this post.

It's just a pain in the ass to type anything on it. But it does work quite well for showing Youtube videos on the big screen without hooking the computer up.

Keep practising.

It has dropped to USD 550 down here, much better than the original 750 tag. I may be buying one on May. Hopefully I will be able to register it under US region, I want to buy a couple of games I have never played (Ocarina of Time, in example).

Yikes, they're only $280 CAD here..

I plan on getting one sometime.. whenever they're more available.

Cue angelic choir.

I picked a Wii up a couple of weeks ago (when I found out I got the new jorb;D) I paid $279.00 for it (plus taxes). I also bought Twilight Princess since I enjoyed playing it before my room-mate moved out.

I was going to post this reply using the Wii itself, but it would have taken far too long. So far I have mostly been using the Wii to watch youtube clips and stuff on my TV

Off topic:
I recall someone here saying they had problems using the Wii with a secured network. Mine is using WEP 128bit (if you call that secure) and the Wii has no trouble.

<not posting with my wii>
I've got 64-bit Hex WEP encryption on my network and it streams youtube video's pretty well, so I'd assume that it's working fine with encryption. The only think i found "buggy" with the web browser was the sound. Youtube and other flash videos seemed to have some noise.

With my wii I got an extra nunchuck controller, and extended warranty, and wii play with a grand total of $365 US.
i plan on using my wiimote with mythtv on my linux machine.. TAKE THAT EVIL TV CARD REMOTE MAKERS, I CAN STILL BE A LAZY ASS.
That is if I can ever figure out how to get mythtv and my tv tuner card working...

So far no other games with my wii since they are rather expensive right now...

I hear paper mario is awesome.

I have no desire to bother with the browser functionality as I have a perfectly good PC sitting in the next room Browsing with consoles and mobile devices is largely overrated.

That said, congrats on actually acquiring a Wii. I would have never dreamed that demand would be as steep as it is.

My youtube is fine, no extra noise. I did have trouble getting my Wii on my secured network, and the troubleshooting website the Wii pointed me to didn't even exist!

Some googling later, and I found out that there was a bug and the firmware version wouldn't work with some routers in G-only mode. I threw my router on B/G and the Wii worked fine falling back on B.

Something even worse then that is I have my wii hooked up to a 22" monitor using a tv tuner card, so a perfectly functional web browser is a minimizing click away. This might also explain my sound issue... My tv tuner card is rather low end.

ADDITION:
When playing the wii sports boxing game, As I swing the wiimote about in flailing glory, I was reminded of the Ipod commercials, where most of it is just a dark figure with a swinging ipod cord... Hmm.

What happened to game consoles being just for playing games?

*cough* PlayStation 3 *cough*

(Everytime I do that Sony pays me money)

^{(I'm kidding, but it would be great if they did...)}

PS3 Sucks. Get over it.

</flamewar troll>

Err, I believe Sony said many times that the Playstation 3 is not just a game console, but a complete media center. I also believe that before it came out, they claimed that "we no longer needed the PC."

On the other hand, Nintendo's angle for Wii is that it's "all about the games."

I still prefer the PC for surfing. I have only used the Wii for a cumulative total of 8 hours or so. Most of that was spent playing around with the Wii browser for "novelty" . I find it slower to navigate than a traditional PC, and since I do not plan on forking out cash for a peripheral I already own (my PC keyboard works just fine) I do not plan to use it again. I may play the occasional flash game using it.

So in answer to your question, now that the novelty has worn off I will be using it only for gaming.

As an aside: man, I'm glad I didn't shell out $700 for a few hours of novelty and a 7 month wait for decent games.

I don't know about you, but I don't have a whole lot of time for games right now anyway... I still haven't opened FFXII from Christmas...

In any case, the PlayStation 3 is still the better deal.

I opened my copy of FFXII, but only got about 10 hours before I didn't have time either.

I'm a Sony fanboy as well. I've followed them almost religiously for a long time. However, I cannot possibly fathom how the ps3 is better than the Wii in cost-effectiveness. And the Wii360 duo is way better than blowing your money on a single ps3. Now, if I had three ps3's, maybe then I could enjoy them...

Yep, because paying hundreds of dollars more for a box that would likely sit on my floor doing nothing untill Grand Theft Auto comes out in October is a better deal by far.

I've looked at the games out for PS3 at EB games and none of them interest me. Wii has several titles that I can think of off the top of my head that I would probably enjoy.

Edit:
So if I pay hundreds of dollars more to get a cell processor and a blu-ray player that I wouldn't use untill October would I really benefit from your better deal?

What's different about buying a Wii now and falling off in a matter of months or a year when it's hype evaporates versus buying a PlayStation 3 now before the mass games are released and not gaming with it right away and then it taking over?

There is no difference.

answer:
hole in my wallet

I never really said that you should buy a PlayStation 3 right now either. I just said that it's better than the alternatives. It's been better since it was a proposal, long before it was available.

There's no point buying a Wii (nor 360) now just because it's market exists (only because of an early release date and lower quality product) versus waiting for the PlayStation 3's market to develop.

And with better you mean what? And for whom?

I don't really think the whole "Wii hype" will be evaporating any time soon either. Nintendo has managed to attract the attention of many 3rd party developers including Take Two Interactive (the current developers of the coveted GTA series). With good developer support one can expect a variety of innovative and entertaining titles.

People really don't know what to think about the future of the Wii. Many say it will get squashed once the big hitters of the other consoles come (and/or fall too far behind in other areas to compete) and others say it's revolutionary (remember the code name?) and is here to stay.

The thing is, the Wii is the better deal now. When and if the ps3 starts chuggin' later on, it's not like I'll be "Man, I can't believe I have this stupid Wii...I hate having fun!" In other words, the Wii will still be a good deal in the future, maybe not the better deal, but a good deal nonetheless.

Eventually, the ps3 will come down in price. Then and only then will it stand a chance of being a better deal.

I think Onewing has managed to sum things up very elegantly

Edit:
Fixed

Using the word "best" to describe something by itself doesn't concern itself with price. The best is quite literally describing which entity most exceeds the competition. In any case, I'd still argue that for the price the PlayStation 3 is still the best system all things considered.

The price isn't the problem. It's annoying when people expect good things to be free... If you compare the hardware in the systems it's easy to see why the PlayStation is priced higher. That's like waiting to buy a high end gaming PC because you want the hardware to come down in price. If you want the best you have to pay for it. That's true in everything.

If you don't need the best you can settle for a Wii or 360..

I agree that all systems are nice and they each have something to offer. It's undeniable though that the PlayStation 3 has the most to offer.

The thing that worries me about the Wii is its gimmicky nature. Yes, we've seen some cool and creative games come out since its release, like Wario Ware and such, but... how long can it go on, really? How much can you really do with the Wiimote before the control scheme just becomes strained and inappropriate? How many games can you really cook up where waving a stick around is going to be a relevant and interesting part of the gameplay?

If - or maybe 'when' - this happens, we'll all just go back to using a gamepad instead... and at that point, the Wii will have lost the very thing that made it unique. Will this happen, and if it does, will it actually have that great an impact? I don't know. But one should keep it in mind.

As for the PS3, right now it's mostly just an overpriced Blu-Ray player. Before the market kicks off (and let it be said that even when it does there's no guarantee it will surpass the already flourishing Wii/Xbox360 market), I just don't see it worth spending five hundred and ninety-nine US dollars on.

You don't need expensive hardware to enjoy a game. I don't think the ps3 is the best console. It got the best hardware, but that doesn't automatically make a game good.

To disclaim my thoughts: this is just my opinion. Yes, the Wiimote is gimmicky but at the same time, feels pretty natural in the hand. I don't need a manual on how to use it, I pretty much pick it up and start playing. To me, that's what a gamepad essentially is. True, the "new way to play games" is pretty much the Wii's angle, but I never considered it that way. I still consider it pick the controller and start playing, like any other console. The thing about the Wii is it is limited on the hardware and promotes thinking out-of-the-box, which I think is a good thing. I don't play games for outstanding performance, I play them for fun.

Once again, my opinion.

[edit]
The masses seemed to be fooled into thinking performance > fun.

Nah, performance = potential. The Wii is limited by its hardware which forces "out of the box games" to be the main focus for it. If you look at the history of game titles, most of them are improvements on evolving game designs. Most of us can describe the best gaming experience, but our hardware is limiting what games can be today. The limitation hasn't really been the controller over the years, rather, it's mostly speed and capacity. As that improves so do the games.

Sure, fun is why you play the games, but you don't need an innovative controller for fun. NES games can still be fun and even Flash games are fun.

The controller is merely an interface between the human and the computer. The only thing you should care about in a controller is being able to comfortably communicate with the computer at a fast pace and for long periods of time. If you think about, the Wiimote requires more energy to communicate your inputs.

While the Wiimote makes playing games fun as well (a little bit like playing a sport ), ultimately you're playing a game which is in a virtual world. How many of us can do amazing things physically? Video games provide a way to experience the feeling of accomplishing something that you couldn't otherwise do. In a boxing game, you're limited by how fast you can coordinate "punches", for example. Some players will either do better playing these games while others are very handicapped or the game will lack realism for equality.

I think the controller should be an interface between the computer and human. It's good to be more natural and precise, but there are other things to consider.

Is it really?

Gotta stop and ask yourself if there is anything you can do on the PS3 that you can't already on the PS2? The answer is no. I'm just being realistic; you'll be playing the exact same games on the PS3, just a little prettier and with slightly improved physics. Look at the 360's roster and tell me what we're playing now.

I think people are being horribly myopic about the whole power thing. Certainly it hasn't impacted the handheld sector where developers are making incredibly entertaining games with limited resources.

Wrong-o. The controller is how you interact with the game, which means that it is functionally more important than any processor, graphics chipset, or networking ability. A good developer designs their game around the control setup, not the other way around. Putting it into a 'real world' scenario, would you prefer to venture to a foreign country with a translator equipped with a 500 word database, or one with 10,000?

USD 350 I know, I know, late, but sorry, I was at the doctor.

Some people don't acknowledge evolution until it is too late. Atari suffered it with his ET game, Nintendo with the CDRom, and now Sony with the controller

The answer is actually yes. The six-axis controller is new and the much faster processor and graphics processor will allow many more objects to be drawn making the scene more realistic. The video of GTA IV looks amazing... The city actually looks like a city packed with cars!

It will also allow for a lot more content and game-play. Things like how GTA has minigames everywhere. More capacity and speed allows there to be more and more of these which makes the game feel more real. You should be able to steal a taxi cab and pretend to be a cabi and drive fares, for example. There are thousands of things that are done in a city and I hope that there is much more to do in GTA IV.

They aren't the exact same. The are much improved. As far as PS3 games, they will be much more detailed and the physics can be much improved as well.

Again with the "you don't need power to have fun" argument. No, you don't. Then again, it helps a lot. What do you think has been driving computer hardware to the capacities and speeds they are at? Sure, server hardware is an influence on processor speeds and memory capacity, but processor speed, memory capacity, and graphics processing are largely being driven by the gaming industry. We can't get hardware that's fast enough or with high enough capacity. Power, meaning speed and capacity, is the most desired.

The game controller does need to be considered for game-play, but it shouldn't dictate the game. The controller is definitely not more important than the processor, graphics chipset, networking, or memory.

Okay, now imagine you have one translator than requires you to write down everything you say (an analogy for doing extra work to communicate the same information) because they can only read/write your language or a translator that can read/write and speak your language.

I nominate this for "Most Idiotic Gaming-Related Statement Of The Year." It should be a shoe-in.

I beg to differ. No one who has never played a video game and sees the sixaxis/dualshock controler would bother trying out the kind of hard core games that is available on PS3/360. It's just too complicated. As you say games are often based on earlier games but this is a trap for the game industry as this fails to bring in new players. Games nowadays like C&C3 etc more or less require that you've player countless of similar games before. With a less conservative controller people people have different ideas of what it's used for. Simpler is one thing.

Personally, I cannot think of anything more unintersting.

Indeed. All my favourite games can be played on a Pentium II or [in many cases much] earlier processor.

You honestly think / believe that the PCVideo Gaming Industry is responsible for driving the hardware market?

Come to the OLG and look at the demands for data storage, processing power, network capacity etc. etc. I would say huge organizations both create the need and fund the development for complex solutions to age old problems. And as far as graphics processing goes, given the explosion of computer generated imagery in movies/advertising/tv the ability to capture more complexity and detail would stil be in demand. As an example, the OLG has just purchased several FireGL V7350 1GB PCI-Express card at a whopping $1,999 a card. These cards are going to be used to drive some 30 ft Screen in Toronto.

I would say that if anything much of the current hardware is passed/watered down from what the big organizations used a few years ago. Kinda like how some other consumer products were developed by the Military and whatnot.

Edit:
Corrected some statements

Your argument is basically: "Buy the console, wait for the games" Unfortunately, most don't agree. USA, March 2007 showed Wii selling 259,000 units and 508,000 DS (with shortages) while PS3 sold 130,000. Japan, March 2007 shows a similar trend: 263,000 Wiis and 504,000 DS. Don't even ask how many PS3 sold in Japan during March, I think it did not even reach 100,000 units. Considering what Bandai Namco stated, that they need to sell half a million units of a game to cover game development, third party exclusives for such a small install base is out of question. That is why Dragon Quest VII launched on PS, Dragon Quest VIII on PS2 and now Dragon Quest IX on DS. Either the console has a huge install base, or the company pays for the exclusivity, something Sony appears not to do. That is why so many exclusives (Assassin's Creed, Grand Theft Auto IV, Fatal Inertia, Bladestorm and lately Devil May Cry 4) are no longer for PS3 only. Right now, the only heavy cards left in PS3's deck are Final Fantasy XIII and Metal Gear Solid 4, and while I don't think MGS4 would move to Xbox 360, nobody says Square won't do that with FFXIII.

GameCube loyalists kept stating "wait for the games" and the games arrived and left with little impact. You cannot buy a console for the games that may come, that is like buying a coffin for the accident you may have. You buy something to use it now. And if you don't care about the multimedia capabilities, buying a USD 600 piece of hardware to keep it just in case something good appears is nonsense. I would pay it if I were really interested (heck, my mobile phone was more expensive than the PS3), but in this case, the utility for a console is to play games, and without them, it wastes room.

Unless, of course, you think there will be shortages of PS3: (Edited: Dang, linking to images is not working!) Here

{"name":"20070309.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/4\/a475f74a6a50b331f2bae20f5cd1d49e.jpg","w":750,"h":376,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/4\/a475f74a6a50b331f2bae20f5cd1d49e"}

What exactly were you trying to say there? If you're trying to say that the Six-Axis/Dual-Shock design is poor then you're completely wrong. It's the best game controller I have ever used and that includes the Wiimote (I'm sure there are millions that would agree, whether or not they are on Allegro.cc). I don't feel comfortable with the Wiimote. I've played literally hundreds or thousands of hours with the Dual-Shock controller design and I still love it. It's the best controller design to date.

Actually,...

What's better: buying the hype product now or buying, or waiting a few months to buy, the best/dominant product for the next 7 years?

Why it is better? Because of its potential. But the potential won't be demonstrated without games, and PS3 is doing poorly there.

Somehow, I think your first console was Sony branded

No console will survive 7 years if sales continue to be as poor as the current ones. Even you should already notice that PS3 exclusives are moving to Xbox 360. That should give you a hint.

Speak for yourself, I'm sure there are also millions out there who have used both and say the Wiimote feels just fine. I know I for one feel this way.

The argument that you have to expend more energy using the Wiimote is not exactly true either. Last night I got home from Sutherlands around 1:00am completely exhausted. I flopped down on the couch and started playing some Twilight Princess using only the minimalist amount of effort to flick my wrists and nothing else. I would guess that the same amount of effort would be exerted using the six-axis controller.

As for players who are somewhat handicapped / slower, one can turn around argue the exact same thing for the PS3. In the example you mention (Boxing) players have the option of setting handicaps and such to help balance things out for inexperienced/slower players.

My first two consoles were NES and SNES. Then I got a PlayStation and realized that Sony does it better. Nintendo has been disappointing...

No, but I'm sure Final Fantasy 7 has a lot to do with his love of the PS.

You're missing the forest for the trees. The Dual Shock is a fairly well designed controller, and it has specific purposes as well as distinct limitations to what types of input it can provide the program. Now compare that to something like the Wii remote + chuck where your limitations are virtually nonexistent... that's the point some of us have been trying to make.

So apparently there are limitations to the Dual-Shock/Six-Axis design whereas the Wiimote is a virtually infinitely capable controller... Somebody's disqualified from this debate.

Both controllers have limitations. I have been using the Dual-Shock controller for a long time for a variety of game genres (RPGs, shooters, driving/racing) and it has an excellent design for all of them.

In my experience the Wiimote doesn't seem to. It's more blocky.

Not really. It might contribute, but there are a lot of other factors that contribute more. Besides, FF7 was released on other platforms too.

You really need to start paying attention.

I don't know if I should feel insulted or flattered.

My bad.

Yeah, I don't know either... I remembered seeing X-G earlier and I probably just assumed he said it... Sorry to both of you.

As I design industrial as well as commercial control systems all day I'm well qualified to tell you what you can do with a handful of digital and analogue inputs. The SIXAXIS controller expands what the Dual Shock has with the addition of basic tilt sensitivity that lends itself well to relatively simple actions that involve balancing or rotation. As it is not designed to be a fully motion-sensitive controller it doesn't have the broad scope of implementation possibilities the Wii Remote has -- it's that simple.

As I've said before you can lead someone to the compound but you can't make them drink the Kool-aid. I can't offer you any more assistance.

According to what I have read the Six-Axis controller is supposed to be able to detect all of the same motion as the Wiimote (rotational and transitional acceleration). If that information is correct then the only difference between the Wiimote and Six-Axis controllers is the shape and the way they are held by the user. The Wiimote is designed to be held like a handle and swung (or like a traditional controller, though I would argue that they sacrificed traditional comfort for their innovative use) while the Six-Axis is designed to only be held like a traditional controller.

If Nintendo didn't lock down their patents well enough I expect that a third-party controller similar to the Wiimote will be produced for PlayStation 3 (and Xbox 360) which would completely cripple Nintendo from the serious gamers. Afterall, the only thing special about Wii is the controller...

I was trying to say that there are different user groups. As you clearly stated you have played quite a lot with the dual shock and it is now an extension of your brain. This is however not true for most of the population. Something that looks more like a remote or a regular handle is.

I'm sure the PS3 is a great platform, but it is targeting hard core gamers which are very few compared to non/casual gamers. For hard core gamers it will be greater than great. And the people who like singstar might even know a hard core player where they can play it, but I doubt they will shed out the cash to own it.

For a serious gamer, yes. But for the general public I think the big thing is the marketing and the familiy friendly appeal. Simple and easy, everybody can play. Look at how the iPod has conquered the portable music industry. Simple and easy, no fuss. Everyone can play. Trust me, not everybody likes long lists of tech specs and black things filled with testosterone.

Nintendo already left the serious gamers behind. I see Nintendo approach as "Those who want to follow me, come here" instead of "What do you want? What else? What else? Ok, that is US600" one.

In the last generation 150m of consoles had been sold. I am pretty sure there are many more TVs in the world than that, don't you think? Say, 1,000m? That is the market they are trying to catch. Check this article to get a better explanation.

When you are a hardcore, you think the world rotates around you. However, the casual market is much bigger than the hardcore one in terms of potential. Nintendogs and Brain Age sold at least 10 times more than Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories in PSP. Until you step out of the bubble, you won't realize this.

The fact is that the majority of the world has other interests and wouldn't spend a lot of money on gaming. There are some you can convince to play Wii and some might even get it, but the majority of non gamers will remain non gamers. Wii requires similar abilities as any PS3 game so if they don't enjoy PS3 games they won't enjoy most Wii games either. At least, no more than playing catch in the real world.

Not the whole world. Only the gaming world. I don't even know if you would consider me a hardcore gamer, though if I had the time and paper I would be.

The casual market has other things to spend money on than video games. For example, the casual gamer has other things on their mind like developer tools, sports equipment, movies and other entertainment, etc. The casual gamer doesn't invest as much into the video game industry as the hardcore gamer does. Sure, there might be more casual gamers then there are hardcore gamers, but I expect the hardcore gamers are still putting more money into the industry. Actually, it's the hardcore games (the games that most appeal to hardcore gamers) that are earning more money than the rest. Both casual and hardcore gamers alike usually love those games.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to play a PS3 game. If you're having trouble that's definitely not Sony's fault.

You're comparing Nintendogs to GTA: Vice City Stories!? I haven't been able to find profit information for the two games. It's possible that Nintendogs was more successful, regardless of what the better game really is, but the portable market isn't exactly a hardcore gamer market. In fact, it largely appeals to children... Those children grow out of Nintendo and into PlayStation. Also keep in mind that parents buying a portable system for their children are likely to get them the cheaper product which limits the game purchases to that platform.

My understanding is that GTA: VCS wasn't a very good game compared to the high quality versions available on the consoles and PC. It looks awesome for a portable game, but portable gaming isn't very big. I don't expect too many people would buy the PSP simply for GTA: VCS (especially after it was released on PS2 as well).

I don't see Nintendogs selling for as high of a price as a GTA game either, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the GTA code was ported from other platforms to cut down on time and money. There's simply not enough information available to compare.

I think the PSP is an awesome hand held and a lot better than the DS, but I think Nintendo has the portable market because Sony hasn't been focusing on PSP.

It's a good thing you put "I think" in there, because you think wrongly. I was interested in the PSP, but after seeing one and playing it myself, I wasn't impressed at all. The DS is captivating and I've seen many, many college students playing them (some during class...well, most during class).

Anyway, I've reached my quota.

You know, I might have to sig that.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, but it does take a fair bit of co-ordination. I can't use gamepads to save myself, which is the major reason why I don't like playing games on consoles.

I haven't seen a Wii yet, so I don't know if I'd fare any better with their controllers.

In case you hadn't noticed, nobody else was talking about the hardcore gamer market.

Well, yes, because Vice City Stories is the representation of hardcore gaming in the portable world. I was going to tell you that Nintendogs and Brain Age each sold more than Halo 2, but then you would say it is not just because those games are cheaper. Then I was going to tell you that Wii has three million seller games, but you would complain that a) Wii Play comes with a bundled controller, b) Wii Sports is bundled, and would dismiss Japan buying over a million copies of the game because Japan is not like US (or Europe, no idea where you are from), and c) Twilight Princess is for hardcore gamers. At Wikipedia we have three certified million sellers for PSP and 19 for Nintendo DS.

Note that the portable market is expected to beat, by the "end" of this "generation", the home console market.

Let's try something easier: Microsoft and Sony have both platforms that are appealing to the hardcore gaming world, ok? Nintendo is aiming at the casual world. Sony tried with LocoRoco and failed, Microsoft tried with Viva Piñata and failed. Nintendo got it. Now, we just need to sit down and wait to see whether the casual gaming market is as big as Nintendo (and I, mind you) thinks it is, or if the hardcore area is bigger.

Bingo! A company that is not a monopoly MUST adjust its product to fit the market, not the way around. Why few people use Gaim compared with, say, Trillian? Why people prefer Photoshop instead of Gimp, 3D Studio instead of Blender, Windows instead of Linux, etc? User friendliness. Something that is user friendly will always start with an advantage.

I check the NeoGAF forums pretty often (although I don't have an account there), and would die to ask a PS3 fan how long it will take for the console to gain momentum. I read people stating it will sell more on launch, but it didn't happen, then January after the holiday seasons because Wii would stop selling, but it beat Xbox and PlayStation, then March because Sony showed Little Big Planet and Home... now October... as in NeoGAF is usually pointed, that is what GameCube owners kept saying until they could not deny the truth

Oh, nobody denies the PSP is awesome. But it is well ahead of its time. So ahead that it is shunned as a gaming machine, and instead used for watching videos (software sales are terrible for a Sony product).

To keep it simple, let's summarize the facts: Nintendo DS is the best selling portable console of this generation. Xbox 360 is the best selling home console of this generation. Let's see by the end of this year whether these two statements still hold true or not. If they are true, we can detect a trend. If they are not, we can make new conclusions.

I'm really not concerned with the PlayStation 3 sales figures. How many Ferrari's fly off the production line in a day? $700 is a new high for game consoles and obviously some people are a little struck by it. Nobody is denying that PlayStation 3 is the best console. They are arguing that the price is too high. Personally the only thing keeping me from owning one is the money, which should be sorted out this summer.

I know that Wii has higher sales figures than the 360 or PlayStation 3. However, Sony isn't going to throw the PlayStation 3 away. They also aren't going to go bankrupt because their game console isn't flying off the shelves. They are a massive company and PlayStation is only one of many products.

If the PlayStation 3's sales are inadequate Sony will most likely lower the price to a point where they sell and then the Wii will be forgotten. This discussion is about which system is the better system to own and at the end of the day it will be the PlayStation 3.

I emphasis "if" because personally I'm just waiting for the paper which means there are probably thousands or millions of others who are doing the same thing. I'm completely fine with paying $700 for a PlayStation 3. A knew a couple of guys that paid $800 for an Xbox and are complaining about the PlayStation 3's pricing. I'm not sure why people are feeling anti-Sony, especially those that are anti-Microsoft in PC discussions. Maybe it's only the PC community that is anti-Sony because Sony isn't something they're used to?

That doesn't sound very realistic to me at all. This generation being DS and PSP versus Wii, 360, and PS3 means that the portable solutions are about two generations behinds in terms of power (potential).

The fact is that only so much data can be presented on a small screen and users will always prefer to see a larger display. Since we're not planning to be constantly moving anytime soon it's highly unlikely that players will prefer to use a portable game device from home when they could use a more powerful, enriching PC or game console.

I've never had problems interacting with anything in the PlayStation family. PlayStation has always been very user-friendly.

The difference is that GameCube was not even competition for the PlayStation 2. However, the PlayStation 3 is actually the best system of the current generation of consoles.

Dude, using your definition of best console, the Xbox was the best last gen. Also, the PS2 may have been the worst (Not counting Dreamcast BTW, it disappeared before Xbox and GameCube came out)

And for some reason, I'm remembering that some specs I read on the PS2 made it out to have only 20MB of memory total (CPU + GPU + shared). If them specs were wrong, and claims the GameCube had less memory are true... Ouch!

Yeah, true... The PlayStation 2 was the best last gen console because for the first couple years it was the most powerful and had the best games. Even after the Xbox was released the PlayStation 2 still had much better games than the rest and was competitive hardware wise, though the Xbox was apparently more powerful.

You see it as the PlayStation 3 not having games. I know they are coming from all of the best companies so I don't see it that way. Besides, there are a number of good games for the PlayStation 3, whether you agree or not.

So, power is directly proportional to the potential, but contradicts the next quote:

The PlayStation 2 was basically a generation behind Xbox (Xbox was 3 or 4 times more powerful than PlayStation 2, more memory, better graphics and sounds, better online capabilities, etc), yet PlayStation 2 sold more. Nintendo 64 was a more powerful console than PlayStation, yet PlayStation sold more.

Now, if when saying "potential" you include "games that will be made", now there we need to stop. This is an industry, and while players expect companies to be loyal to the fans, they only care about business.

• Square Soft switched to PlayStation because it was in their interests to use CD-Rom technology (cinematics and lower costs).

• Capcom ported Resident Evil 4 to PlayStation 2 (and now to PCs) regardless of their exclusive deal with Nintendo.

• Capcom is making Devil May Cry 4 multiplatform regardless of fan outcry. You can either sell to a market of 3 million PlayStation 3 or to a market of 3 million PlayStation 3, 10 million Xbox 360 and 100 million PC. Other publishers like Ubisoft and Koei thought the same.

• Square Enix is creating Dragon Quest IX, the best selling game in Japan, in the console with the biggest install base, highest sales and cheapest to develop.

• Take Two ported Vice City Stories to PlayStation 2 even though they assured everyone it was PSP exclusive.

• Microsoft considers that a Viva Piñata game on Nintendo DS makes sense.

• Sony did not think about all the textures they would add to a game when designing the Blu-ray. It is a strategic movement, and they will happily give up the gaming market in order to make Blu-ray the standard. They tried with Betamax, and lost to VHS. They tried with MMCD and lost agaisnt Toshiba's SD (which would ultimately become the DVD). They are trying again with Blu-ray. The gaming sector is insignificant compared to the media storage market.

Even hardcore-focused companies like Take Two must learn the lesson; Bully and Grand Theft Auto alone can't save them. Guess you know the shareholders kicked the previous management and put a new one that will focus on Wii as much as on PS3. Majesco sold well with hardcore gamers, but not enough to pay for licenses, and now they focus on portable and low budget hits. This is an industry, and nobody wants to do an Atari and disappear.

So, companies will do what makes sense to them. Final Fantasy XIII and Metal Gear Solid 4 will launch on PS3, no doubt. But as a company, it makes sense to either go multiplatform or delay the launch 6 months. They could launch regardless, some companies take risks (Nintendo switched Super Paper Mario from GameCube to Wii to increase Wii sales, even though they could have sold much more by leaving it as a GameCube with a 22m install base or by going multiplatform), but seriously, as a company you won't mind what fans will think. I seriously doubt a CEO can use "We want our fans to be happy" to explain shareholders why they launched a game exclusively in a console with less than a fifth of market share. Sony will have to pay dearly for that exclusivity, apparently more than what they offered to Capcom for Devil May Cry.

Sony created the most advanced (in terms of raw power) game machine indeed. But so did Atari with Lynx, SNK with Neo Geo, Panasonic with 3DO, Atari again with Jaguar, Nintendo with Nintendo 64, Microsoft with Xbox, Sega with DreamCast and Sony with PlayStation Portable. And at the end of the day, all those "most advanced" consoles did not lead the market. In the end, this is business.

(Edited: I notice someone already pointed out about Xbox being more powerful... that is just because the option to show new posts is not enabled... Matthew, we need it! )

my all time favourite console was my xbox, after modding it, it became the most versatile game platform i ever owned, not forgetting the amount of money i saved by pirating games.

ReyBrujo: You do know the Dreamcast is in the same gen as the Xbox right? So which was more powerful of last gen?

Technically, you are right Xbox was more powerful than Dreamcast indeed. As a colorful note, I always put Saturn and Dreamcast in the same generation, with PlayStation and Nintendo 64, because it lost all its support just after PS2 launched (technically, Dreamcast was finished before even Xbox entered the market), and not just because of "bit count" (otherwise, Nintendo 64 would have competed against Jaguar, bit wise).

L O L

This thread is turning into something hilarious. I will try not to post in it anymore since no one is going to change their minds anyway. But please keep it up!

Of course it's in the best interest of developers to make their game available to the largest audience possible. However, for the consumer it is most desirable to play a game in all it's glory. That means being able to play it on the most powerful system so the quality is peaked.

Sony PlayStation has been successful for a number of reasons and I'm hardly qualified to list them. I can say after owning a PSX and PS2, and seeing the competition for each, I would say that PlayStation always has the better product. The design is better and more user-friendly.

Hardware
=========

The PlayStation hardware has always been competitive. I was under the impression that the PlayStation X outpowered the competition. I was also under the impression that the Xbox was the only platform that out-powered the PlayStation 2. My friend owned an Xbox (bought for $800) and he never played it. It wasn't a good platform. The Nintendo platforms sucked and if they were more powerful than PlayStation you wouldn't know it because the games always look like cartoons.

Controller
==========

The Nintendo controllers are always awkward to use and the Xbox controllers are way too large to be comfortable. The PlayStation controllers fit in your hand nicely and provide a good mechanism for common tasks (trigger, gas/brake, walk/strafe, etc.).

Games
======

On top of that, the developers have always provided the best games for PlayStation consoles. I can't think of any games that were exclusive to another platform that I care to play. Wii isn't capable of running a lot of the newer games coming out (unless they are seriously altered) so it is going to be eliminated as a port for a lot of the top games. The PlayStation 3 is going to offer the greatest gaming experience and as soon as the games start coming it will sell more.

Blu-Ray
========

I've heard it said a couple times that the PlayStation 3 is an expensive Blu-Ray player. Actually it's an inexpensive Blu-Ray player. I'm glad that Blu-Ray technology is built into the PlayStation 3. The 360 is supposed to have an HD-DVD drive coming (is that out yet), but users have to pay for it separately. What that means is that some people are going to decide not to purchase the drive and either lose support from some media or just lower demand for HD-DVD products. It seems obvious that Blu-Ray is the better media replacement for DVDs.

Those are my thoughts on the PlayStation market. The developers have a relationship with Sony. The Wii is targetting the non-gamers, which means that to appeal to it's user-base the developers will have to go out on a limb with a new game idea that may or may not sell well. With the 360 and PS3 you have power and fans of the consoles that want more advanced versions of the same genres. GTA IV and FFXIII look like two games that could keep me entertained for years.

The games on the Wii that I have seen would bore me after a few weeks.

Consider the phrase "Start thinking PlayStation! Blow shit up!" The world knows what PlayStation represents (18+) versus what Xbox represents (Halo ) and what Nintendo represents (Mario).

Your opinions do not equal what the "world" thinks.

Manhunt 2 is being released for the Wii. Take Two interactive has already stated that developing for Nintendo is a must. Considering their past interactions with Nintendo I would say things are changing. So your argument that Playstation is always going to have (in your opinion) better games is only half true. The Playstation will have the capability to display better graphics, but if the game itself is the same, I'm sure most would settle for that.

I agree that the hardware in the Play Station 3 is top of the line. I would love to own one somday, but the Wii has fun games right now. In a year or so I will buy a Play Station 3, by the the price will have dropped a bit.

Developers fully supported PlayStation 2 indeed. Xbox could have better graphics and sounds, but this is business: program for the lowest spec, and then port to the other one. That is why Xbox games look like PlayStation 2.

This is one of the first things Sony did right: applying Sega slogan to Nintendo and Sega itself.

GameCube was a very powerful console, however developers never really cared to learn how to correctly use its power. Resident Evil 4 is considered the best game of the last generation, and it was released for GameCube. To concentrate on a platform, either the platform must have a huge install base (so huge that sales in that platform alone would be higher than combining the other consoles), or pact a deal with the console maker (what Nintendo did with Capcom).

We can expect first and second party titles to be launched on PlayStation 3. However, third party support will be slower. SNK already stated they won't be developing until 2009, and Eidos does not plan anything until 2008. I doubt Konami or Square Enix will launch their most expected titles this year (especially considering Dragon Quest IX is launching this year). Titles that were expected to sell in Japan, like Gundam Musou, disappeared from chart after selling 300,000 or so copies (remember, its developer, Namco, stated they needed 500,000 to cover costs, so they will think it twice before putting costly exclusives again). Titles like Virtua Fighter 5 are being ported to Xbox 360 because of the small install base. And this created an egg-chicken paradox: without appealing games, the console won't sell, but without consoles, developers won't put heavy hits. Only Sony can break it, either by signing exclusives or launching appealing first party games.

I am confident PlayStation 3 will get very good games. But don't expect PS3 to get 70% of share market this generation. Sony has never lowered the price of a console (not even the PSP) before 18 months, yet they introduced a price cut in Japan before even launching (which did not work at all). Again, this is business, and right now, PS3 bleeds money.

I will create a new thread on the first days of October, let's see how things are doing by then.

Well, not always. /me points to PSone.

N64 > PSONE

N64 blew PSone out of the water on a hardware level (cpu speed, memory, bus speeds, fill rates, etc.)

Just to illustrate my biases, here is my judgement:
Gamecube ~= PSTWO
PS3 > * (All speaking about the hardware specs, of course)

GC and PSTwo were relatively even matched (GC had the faster CPU, PSTwo had a better fill rate, etc.)
PS3 is hands down more powerful than anything on the market currently. However, as demonstrated time, and time again, power != best console (power is great, if you don't have the games, though, it doesn't matter. What good is a light rail train with no tracks?).

Really? I always found playstation's compontentized directional pad to be a POS, not to mention to feel a little bit unresponsive (granted, the PS controllers I've used weren't new by any stretch of the imagination.)

Arguable, but I'll bite. This is because the playstation had the install base. It is the exact same reason that pretty much every computer game in existance is written for Microsoft Windows instead of Linux or Mac. This has changed, however. Sony no longer has the install base on the current generation. The PS3 is behind in sales, and the rate Wii is going, it will pass up even the Xbox360. Thus, where do we arive? Wii has the install base, ergo, developers will provide "the best games" for it. Remember, "oh shiny" != "great game". To imply such would be a logical fallacy. Graphics does not imply a great game, and being a great game does not imply graphics; they are completely orthogonal issues.

Inexpensive is relative. Just because something is "relatively cheap" compared to it's competitiors, does NOT make it "inexpensive." It makes it "the cheaper alternative." By your logic, a house priced $1 below market value is "inexpensive," even though the house is still has a market value of $200,000. Bullshit.

Sweeping Generalization. I'm a gamer, and I'm not buying the crap their peddling with the PS3.

In short, be careful expressing opinion as fact; it makes you look like an ass.

AFAIA, the playstation systems have always been the weakest of the competition for one simple reasoning: they were out well before the competition, so the competition has slightly more opportunity to pick newer/better hardware components. This is not to say the playstation hardware was crap, just that it didn't stack up again the competition for their respective generations (the GC was on par with and possibly edged out the XBox, which you admit was better, in terms of power, than the PS2). The PS2 had a faster fillrate for the simple reason its hardware couldn't do as much.. much the same reason the PSX had a better fillrate than the N64: the N64 had perspective correct texture mapping with bilinear filtering and mipmapping, and the PSX didn't so it didn't have to "waste" processor cycles on it.

If you notice this generation, the PS3 has the edge in terms of hardware, and was out later than the competition (ignoring Nintendo, who purposely didn't pick "powerful" hardware components this time around).

After you figure the money amounts you would see that the better deals are (in order) Wii, PS3, then 360.

Wii costs are the system, games, and the catalog to order older games from previous systems. (don't know if the online gaming costs)

PS3 costs are the system, games, and then online gaming is free, you can play your PSone and PS2 games you owned before buying the PS3.

360 costs are the system, games, online gaming cards, and if you wait for the update to come you can play you old xbox games on the 360 (assuming you own a xbox game that won't play on the 360 yet).

I own the PS3 60Gig but I would happily get the Wii if I didn't have so many PSOne/PS2 games when I was debating which to get. I will simply get the Wii later, but I won't touch the 360 as I don't like paying to play online. That is why I also don't own any new PC games like WoW because of the fees.

I think it's silly that so many people claim that Wii is no good for 'hardcore gamers'.
I spend many hours every day playing games (it's hurtful to say specifically how many), so I expect that I'd fall into this 'hardcore gamers' category. I see the Wii has being the most appropriate console for people like me. It's breath of fresh air. It offers new ways to play new games. The other consoles may be more powerful, that basically means that they can have fancier graphics. But graphics are not what gaming is about. Good graphics are certainly a good thing, but I don't play games to look at the pictures; and besides, good graphics != highest number of polygons.
I'd rather spend my large number of gaming hours on games I've not played before than on the remakes of old ideas with new graphics.

As for the PS3 being "a cheap blu-ray player"; that's only a useful argument if we were intending to buy a blu-ray player anyway. When I buy a game console, I don't necessary want to pay a bucket load of extra cash for a blu-ray player or whatever other 'cool features' the PS3 claims to have. I don't want to pay for things that I didn't want to buy.

Guess this thread is finished. Let's wait until October then.