Wii Price: Whose side is Matt on anyway?

[RuneSP]

I dont know about you guys, but I dont measure the value of a console by its horsepower, but rather by its "fun factor". Now I havent played the Wii nor the PS3 yet, but judging by the impressions given by people who tried the Wii at E3, Wii should really be fun playing and giving a totally new experience, while the PS3 offered the "same ol' stuff we've been playing since 1996"

 

At this point i'd rather give 400€ for the Wii rather than the PS3.

[Hellfire]

Nintendo leaves out an important aspect of innovation which is simply horsepower.

 

 

 

I want to play a game with excellent graphics and great gameplay - Super Mario Galaxy offers that. Can you tell me other games? Or games that really show true innovation? Metroid Prime 3 looks like a solid sequel but nothing great. Of course it is the same with MS and Sony games but I as a fanboy expect more from Nintendo but so far they did not deliever.

 

 

Metroid has excellent graphics most people just don't have the eye to notice it. Much more enemies, huge environments, awesome particle and smoke affects, great AI,... If you look at Metroid Prime 2 the graphics are almost perfect there's not much you can improve there. TP also has amazing graphics specially for a GC game and Excite Truck doesn't look that bad. Rayman also looks very good. Good graphics aren't innovation at all. They're just evolution, but the thing is while devs concentrate too much on graphics they forget/ don't have time for gameplay and other important things. This last gen graphics reached a very satisfying point that I never felt was reched before, I don't need 70$ games and 600$ games to be satisfied graphically, TP appears to be the most beautiful game out there and it's on GC. The same with Super Paper Mario, Okami and SoTC. I've seen a lot of people lately that admit they just feel that way because they're fanboys, why? Just because it's your favourite company, suddenly they have to be perfect?

Anyway, don't stop posting because of that this is a place for us to discuss what we think and we get so involved we get a little too personal, but that's no reason to stop. I'm not angry at anyone here, just conveying my point of view as you are doing to yours.

[Goron_3]

Everything he said is completely true, and everyone else on the IGN roundtable last week (i think it was 11 editors) agreed with him. If Nintendo are releasing one simple Wii game that people can 'pick up and play' straight away (Wii sports), Nintendo can't put the price at $250, it's something that's just too much for consumers. First of all, $199 seems ALOT cheaper at a casual glance that $250. Also, the 360's core pack only costs $300, and if parents are looking at the demos showing in shops of the difference in graphical quality, some will choose the 360's core pack.

 

Nintendo would probably sell all the 6million Wii's that they want to release at launch if the price was $250, but still, Nintendo need the price top be $199. It's attractive to new people who want to play games and it isn't expensive conpared to the others at all. Matt is completely right.

[Hellfire]

Everything he said is completely true, and everyone else on the IGN roundtable last week (i think it was 11 editors) agreed with him. If Nintendo are releasing one simple Wii game that people can 'pick up and play' straight away (Wii sports), Nintendo can't put the price at $250, it's something that's just too much for consumers.

That doesn't make a single drop of sense. Like, zero.

And parents don't care about graphics nor can they see that huge difference between let's say a last gen GC game a first gen 360 game.

[system_error]

Metroid has excellent graphics most people just don't have the eye to notice it. Much more enemies, huge environments, awesome particle and smoke affects, great AI,... If you look at Metroid Prime 2 the graphics are almost perfect there's not much you can improve there. TP also has amazing graphics specially for a GC game and Excite Truck doesn't look that bad. Rayman also looks very good. Good graphics aren't innovation at all. They're just evolution, but the thing is while devs concentrate too much on graphics they forget/ don't have time for gameplay and other important things. This last gen graphics reached a very satisfying point that I never felt was reched before, I don't need 70$ games and 600$ games to be satisfied graphically, TP appears to be the most beautiful game out there and it's on GC. The same with Super Paper Mario, Okami and SoTC. I've seen a lot of people lately that admit they just feel that way because they're fanboys, why? Just because it's your favourite company, suddenly they have to be perfect?

Anyway, don't stop posting because of that this is a place for us to discuss what we think and we get so involved we get a little too personal, but that's no reason to stop. I'm not angry at anyone here, just conveying my point of view as you are doing to yours.

 

Well I think that I am able to notice major differences between games when it comes to graphics. I watched a few HD videos of Metroid Prime 3 but I did not see more enemies than usual at least not a lot more. So if it goes from 2 hunters to 4 it is nothing special in my eyes. The environment is big but this was the case in Prime 2 aswell. About the AI I can't say much because I would have to play the game by myself. 60FPS, 480p is quite an improvement and the effects you noticed are good and also there seem to be more of them but what I miss is good lightning and shadows. HDR would be a great improvement.

 

 

Super Paper Mario is just awesome especially because I really like the look (I also favor cel-shading for many games) but now you see my point - it is on the Gamecube and so is Zelda: TP. Both very great looking games (we don't have to argue over gameplay because those games just rock) and then you get a comparison with the stuff which has been showed for the Wii so far.

 

If I showed you pictures of RedSteel, Metroid Prime 3, Excite Truck you would probably believe me if I said they are Gamecube games. So far only the gameplay of certain games (mainly Nintendo games) convinced me that the Wii is next-generation. Technically it did not.

 

And gameplay and graphics go hand in hand. Physics are a great way to make a game more realistic and fun. Throwing around stuff, breaking glass, seeing your custom avatar in spilled water. Remember that Wii promotion video with the scary music where a guy plays as if the controller is a torch? Wouldn't that game be even better with realistic and good shadows? A controller alone doesn't make a Revolution - right now I don't feel Wii!

[Owen]

You never know guys, the Wii could launch at £99.99-£129.99 which would be great!

[Hellfire]

 

Super Paper Mario is just awesome especially because I really like the look (I also favor cel-shading for many games) but now you see my point - it is on the Gamecube and so is Zelda: TP. Both very great looking games (we don't have to argue over gameplay because those games just rock) and then you get a comparison with the stuff which has been showed for the Wii so far.

 

If I showed you pictures of RedSteel, Metroid Prime 3, Excite Truck you would probably believe me if I said they are Gamecube games. So far only the gameplay of certain games (mainly Nintendo games) convinced me that the Wii is next-generation. Technically it did not.

 

And gameplay and graphics go hand in hand. Physics are a great way to make a game more realistic and fun. Throwing around stuff, breaking glass, seeing your custom avatar in spilled water. Remember that Wii promotion video with the scary music where a guy plays as if the controller is a torch? Wouldn't that game be even better with realistic and good shadows? A controller alone doesn't make a Revolution - right now I don't feel Wii!

MP3 has bloom that was confirmed and if even MP has awesome lighting I can't see why 3 doesn't.

If you showed me RS, Metroid and ET I wouldn't belive they were GC at all. Metroids textures are too good and overall too good graphically to be done on a any last gen console, Red Steel has some great effects and lighting that is clearly next gen and ET also has good models and effects, even though it isn't very apparent. If you like the look of GC games, why wouldn't you like the look of a way more powerfull GC? See thats my point, you put things in such a odd prespective that makes you want exactly what 360 and PS3 offer. IF they look good, they look good periiod, why bother with details. Yoshi Island still looks good today, as does Okami and Oblivion. Why does it matter that YI is on a 16 bit console, Okami on a 128 bit "weak" console and Oblivion on high end PCs and next gen console with multi core? That doesn't matter, what matters is that the games are beautifull and suck you in. And about physics, the havok engnine is already licensed to Wii and its the best physics engine there is. Also, there's an almost certain confirmation of a PPU. If you don't feel Wii, is because you feel the need to be nitpicky and have all those worries that do you nothing.

EDIT: Man I have no idea what you're saying when you talk in £ lol

[Goron_3]

That doesn't make a single drop of sense. Like, zero.

And parents don't care about graphics nor can they see that huge difference between let's say a last gen GC game a first gen 360 game.

 

Basically, the DS has all these 'Non-games' and they are selling well with the console, but that's because the console is cheap and they are people who are interested in it won't mind buying it. However, will people pay $250 for one game (tbh, people who have never played games before aren't going to buy Zelda or metroid are they, they're going to buy Wii Sports, and then MAYBE wario ware, which judging by the interview on IGN won't be a launch title).

 

Secondly, my Dad works for IBM (who are involved with both PS3 and Wii) and has seen the 'final' specs for it and says that the console, though not an upgraded GC, is not a next gen machine (which nintendo made pretty clear at E3; they want the Wii to be about gameplay not extra polygons). The way my dad described is that it's 'somewhere in between, but most game companies won't rely on the extra power' (for example, Tony Hawks was running on 'close to final' hardware and looked like an Xbox game). Nintendo could easily sell for $150 and still make little profit, so $199 seems fair. I think the only reason Nintendo could consider selling for $250 is that they would be adding something to the console, but still....

 

Anyway, I think we should all remember that Matt is a big nintendo fan and has said in the podcasts and on the site that he wants the Wii to sell very well, and he's just worried that Nintendo won't get through to non-gamers at a price of $250.

 

Personally, i think the price will definately remain at $200, and i think that the statement they made ('no more than $250') was them taking a stab at both Sony and Microsoft. They had a powerful E3 (which Wii won hands down...with the 360 a close second and the ps3 a distant 3rd), and they were making a point to people; that their console, which people queued up for (for almost 5 hours lol) will be a lot cheaper than that other console which costs $600 and has ridge racer on it.

[Pestneb]

lol.

$250 too much?

£175 is a fair price (imo) for what we get.

 

you can twist it how you like, but the sales will come

 

1)hardcore gamers

2)advertised audience (after brain age, wii sports type games)

 

when sales dip they'll advertise a new unusual game to appeal to the wider audience, or release a game to appeal to the hardcore fans, or bundle a popular game, or drop the price.

[system_error]

Secondly, my Dad works for IBM (who are involved with both PS3 and Wii) and has seen the 'final' specs for it and says that the console, though not an upgraded GC, is not a next gen machine (which nintendo made pretty clear at E3; they want the Wii to be about gameplay not extra polygons). The way my dad described is that it's 'somewhere in between, but most game companies won't rely on the extra power' (for example, Tony Hawks was running on 'close to final' hardware and looked like an Xbox game).

 

 

I will assume you tell the truth about your father and IBM but to be honest the CPU is the least important part of a console. I worry more about the GPU because Nintendo always tries to do one thing pretty good and neglect a few others for it. Although if you could convince your father to talk a bit more about the CPU especially the architecture its based on or the features (cache, power management) it would be quite interesting.

 

Gamecube: No online, DVD but otherwise pretty solid and flawless hardware.

 

Nintend just should take the risk ONE time and sell the console at a loss!

[Kav]

Not trying to get into the arguement of graphics, sorry...

 

I say Matt's half right. In regards to the price, he definately is!

 

Sure we'd snap it up for $250 but the market Nintendo is aiming at would not! Non-gamers just wouldn't pay $250 for something hey may occasionally play, remember he's talking about the pricepoint from a non-gamers view.

Kind of like the way I'm not a biker... I wouln't pay more than £100 on a bike, yet bikers themselves are willing to pay MUCH more!

[Goron_3]

My dad just pointed out this article about the Wii's American price.

 

Japanese retailers have begin to accept reservation of the Nintendo Wii console, while an official price hasn't been announced, some Japanese retailers are expecting the price of Wii to be 18,000 yen (US$160)."

 

Source: The-Magicbox

 

Now, the other thread said it's getting released on the 6th November there (possibly), so we could have a $160 Wii soon!

 

I think this could well be true, infact I think Sony and their high price PS3 could have made Nintendo reduce the price...but i guess it's all about supply here, because people WILL queue up for this machine.

 

Also, i also agree that the GPU is the most important. I just hope Nintendo get everything perfect now.

[Hellfire]

We all know it's something in between, but seriously, how does your dad know if devs will use it or not? Nintendo is using it, so why won't the others, that way they wouldnt use 360 and PS3 potential either. Besides, I don't know what kind of job your dad has, but GCs hardware can't be compared with numbers to other architectures. Still, it's pretty obvious it's less powerfull, but without HD it doesn't need that power. And people don't buy a console for just one game thats ridiculous.

And IBM worked on 360 not PS3, even though they have some association with Cell I think. And Tony Hawks looked worse than a XBOX game actually, because the devs suck. Anyway, I dont get why people compare Wii with Xbox, since xbox is the same or worse than GC, it makes no sense. Also next gen doesnt mean more power, get over it. To me the true next gen is Wii and DS (and a little PS3 with the tilting and Eye Toy), because they use new tech thats very important.

EDIT: 160$? That's great, but I'm still afraid ppl will think of it some crappy toy not worth buying for being too cheap. Still, to me, the cheaper, the more games I can buy

[system_error]

360: IBM CPU

Wii: IBM CPU

PS3: Cell is a co-developed CPU by both Sony and IBM, IBM can sell it

 

 

So basicly every console company went to IBM with a bag of cash and their wishes.

[Hellfire]

I think Toshiba is also working on the CPU. Man IBM must be rolling with money. They lose apple but gain MS and Sony.

[Goron_3]

We all know it's something in between, but seriously, how does your dad know if devs will use it or not? Nintendo is using it, so why won't the others, that way they wouldnt use 360 and PS3 potential either. Besides, I don't know what kind of job your dad has, but GCs hardware can't be compared with numbers to other architectures. Still, it's pretty obvious it's less powerfull, but without HD it doesn't need that power. And people don't buy a console for just one game thats ridiculous.

And IBM worked on 360 not PS3, even though they have some association with Cell I think. And Tony Hawks looked worse than a XBOX game actually, because the devs suck. Anyway, I dont get why people compare Wii with Xbox, since xbox is the same or worse than GC, it makes no sense. Also next gen doesnt mean more power, get over it. To me the true next gen is Wii and DS (and a little PS3 with the tilting and Eye Toy), because they use new tech thats very important.

EDIT: 160$? That's great, but I'm still afraid ppl will think of it some crappy toy not worth buying for being too cheap. Still, to me, the cheaper, the more games I can buy

 

What my dad meant (i think) is that companies won't focus on getting the most out of the Wii's graphics with the Dev kits they have and instead focus on making the gameplay better.

 

I also completely agree with what you say about next gen. I don't see why sony and M$ are always like 'the power of the ps3/360 means its next gen', but next generation is about the next leap, and Wii is THE next leap.

[ShadowV7]

I don't believe the whole thing about your dad but I don't really know you so you might be right.GC was like an XBox so will people stop saying the Wii is,really it's getting really annoying now,just like Wii is an updated Cube.Guess what PS3 is an updated PS2 and Xbox 360 is an upgraded Xbox.Had it actually been said by Nintendo or who ever is developing Tony Hawks that it was near final dev kit? I haven't so prove me wrong I don't mind,post a link and show me but they won't be focusing on the games graphics right now,it will be about gameplay,they want to realise a good game fast with decent graphics and a control scheme which i what they are doing just now.Even if it was near final,they wouldn't of been able to fully inplant and change some of the game to make it look better because it was because it was rushed.And stop going on about the damn graphics,we know it isn't great but we haven't actually seen what the graphics will finally be like and we don't know the specs but it's likely the graphics will be better than cubes anyway,so it's not a 'souped up' Xbox because the 360 is a 'souped up' Xbox.

[Zell]

I also completely agree with what you say about next gen. I don't see why sony and M$ are always like 'the power of the ps3/360 means its next gen', but next generation is about the next leap, and Wii is THE next leap.

 

Microsoft/sony think the next leap in graphical terms because each leap in each generation so far has been about graphics.

 

NES to SNES: proper polyphonic sounds and a lot more detailed graphics

SNES to N64: 3D

N64 to GCN: 1st step in realistic graphics

 

I obviously agree with nintendo's direction and think that after this next generation has finished, graphics cant really get much better.

[Shyguy]

Wii is the only console out there not "just a souped up"

 

Gamecube - Wii (totally diff)

Xbox - Xbox 360 (new numbers added)

PS2 - PS3 (1 change, the number)

 

looks like Xbox and PS are the "souped up ones"

[Goron_3]

Wii is the only console out there not "just a souped up"

 

Gamecube - Wii (totally diff)

Xbox - Xbox 360 (new numbers added)

PS2 - PS3 (1 change, the number)

 

looks like Xbox and PS are the "souped up ones"

 

I like your thinking

[RuneSP]

Wii is the only console out there not "just a souped up"

 

Gamecube - Wii (totally diff)

Xbox - Xbox 360 (new numbers added)

PS2 - PS3 (1 change, the number)

 

looks like Xbox and PS are the "souped up ones"

 

haha

 

10 chars

[david.dakota]

If you look through all of Matts comments on Wii, you'll see that he totally loves the machine.

 

Yeah, so he has a few issues with things - the weird price announcement, lack of HD, lack of FULL Wii information - but heck, I think most people have these issues. But as Matt continues to say, they're issues that are puttin him off.

 

Matt's hyped for Wii, without a doubt.

 

Matt is a journalist. He's not contractually obliged to praise Nintendo for everything, he's saying how he feels and to be fair, he's not in the minority who had hoped for more horsepower under the hood.

[DCK]

I agree with Davidredge. The 'whose side is he on' question is just silly. There is no 'side' and most of all Matt isn't supposed to be on a side. He's the only guy at IGN who isn't a total fanboy of his part of the website and that's a good thing. I agree with Matt, though I wouldn't have said it in those words. He says it as though it's all black or white.

[ZeldaFreak]

Lets face it if it came out for in America at £249 thats still before their sales tax - which would still take the price up. TBH all technology no matter how small or big an improvement is way overpriced. E.g. when you buy a new PC surely it should be at least 25% cheaper than the earlier model whith everything inside it at least 50%(in terms of graphics cards and processors etc.)

[Kotey]

Ok ok guys, I'll give Matt from IGN a break for now since we all don't know anything concrete about Nintendo's specs and plans at this time. Let's all wait patiently and see how things pan out. Maybe the Wii will either boast enough horsepower or come with enough pack-in games and add-ons to justify a $250 price-tag. Or else Nintendo will just play it safe and price it at $200, with or without add-ons.

 

I still would like to point out however, that what really got me riled up about Matt's statements was that he sounded like he was dissing Nintendo and almost as if he knew all the facts. It's true that he needs to be objective as a journalist but that does not mean he should be negative to the point of being inflammatory.