Its official, PS3 DELAYS Production Cut 50%

[Groundbeef]

The two companies are suiting up to meet on the battlefied of living rooms everywhere to duke it with they're vibrating controllers. But as they do, Nintendo (remember them?) has been quietly working on a new game machine. And with little fanfare, they're taking the biggest risk of all. The new machine has no media server. It doesn't play videos. It doesn't do anything except play games. And it has this weird new controller technology that allows intuitive gameplay the likes of which no one's seen before. Nintendo continues to produce kid-oriented games, but the overwhelming majority of titles readying to release for their new Wii console are decidedly adult oriented (such as Splinter Cell). Even vintage titles like Zelda and Metroid have made disconcertingly mature transformations. There's a good chance these games will be good. Though Nintendo has been dismissed by many as a kiddie-company, few have ever dared criticized them for producing games with poor gameplay. The Wii will sell for around half what Sony and Microsoft ask for their systems.

Speaking purely as a gamer and not as an HT enthusiast looking for a transport, guess which system I'm betting on to do well?

As a gamer myself I think that you raise an interesting arguement. I would have to agree that the Wii will most likely do well in the market. Indications are that any loss that Nintento will suffer will be small and shouldn't last more than a year if that. (On the hardware side).

Games do make or break a system, and Nintendo has had some solid games over the year. I think that the stable is getting a bit empty though. How many Mario games, or Zelda games, or Pokemon games can you play? I think that after a while games suffer a bit of "Burnout" if the theme is the same every time. A bit of been there, done that.

The lack of HDTV support may make the difference even more striking for gamers as well.

I think that the Wii would make a great backup system, but I am willing to bet sales will not eclipse the PS3 or 360. I am even considering it as a backup system as well.

[Lensman]

As a gamer myself I think that you raise an interesting argument. I would have to agree that the Wii will most likely do well in the market. Indications are that any loss that Nintendo will suffer will be small and shouldn't last more than a year if that. (On the hardware side).

Agreed. It's certainly a better economic model than the ones offered by Sony (heavy-duty hardware = heavy duty price) or Microsoft (let's take a huge loss and hope licensing eventually saves us in a few years).

Games do make or break a system, and Nintendo has had some solid games over the year. I think that the stable is getting a bit empty though. How many Mario games, or Zelda games, or Pokemon games can you play? I think that after a while games suffer a bit of "Burnout" if the theme is the same every time. A bit of been there, done that.

This is precisely why I think the Wii will do well. Burnout is a prevalent problem everywhere you turn. How many first-person shooter/driving/fighting/RPG/skateboard/sports games have you played on your various console/handheld/PC machines? Have any of them ever offered substantially different features or gameplay mechanics? Halo's gravity gun may be fun, but is it really anything more than a repackaged BFG 9000 from Doom? Was Lara Croft's enticing new freedom-of-motion enabled through controls different from Doom? While I'll grant you the games announced for the Wii are superficially the same, the Wii's controller at least offers the possibility of playing these tired old genres in a whole new way.

Consider a game where the character uses a sword. Currently any system you can think of handles a sword fight via a series of button presses or stick pushes. The Wii's motion-sensing controller allows a different approach. Gamers can hold the controller like a sword and move it around as such to fight.

This opens up many new possibilities for how games can be played: the controller can be held and used as if it were a golf club, or a tennis racket, or a fishing rod, etc. This puts a whole new spin on the tired, old genres. Better still, it gives developers an opening to come up with innovative new games that could not be done with conventional controls.

The potential is difficult to dismiss when you consider things historically. Konami's DDR with it's dance pad is hugely popular, and of all the games available, the undisputed king of revenue generation in the arcade world is the Buck Hunter franchise with it's shotgun. Even light gun games persist in their popularity despite the fact that they, almost without exception, offer poor gameplay. And heck, who can forget Missile Command's trackball?

The innovation is sufficient to encourage hard-core gamers to consider the Wii as a second system. But the intuitive control system's biggest potential is in luring casual gamers to purchase - who are the majority of the market. The Wii is squarely aimed at this audience and the fact Nintendo has a reputation for quality kids games is NOT a handicap to these people, many of whom have families. The feature is also highly marketable. Just think about the coverage the news media's likely to give it this Christmas.

The lack of HDTV support may make the difference even more striking for gamers as well. I think that the Wii would make a great backup system, but I am willing to bet sales will not eclipse the PS3 or 360. I am even considering it as a backup system as well.

The lack of HD resolution is certainly a weakness. But how much of one is debatable when you consider the mindset of the market the Wii is aimed at. When the original PlayStation was released, it's new controller got as much buzz as it's 3D graphics. With 110 million units sold, the PS1 is still the top-selling console ever. Though the PS2 offers superior graphics, speed, and backwards compatibility, it hasn't managed to outsell its predecessor. And the Xbox, with its even better capabilities sold a mere 24 million units. Graphics simply aren't a big hot button to most consumers anymore, and with good reason.

When video games first came out graphics were exceedingly crude, but the capabilities made quantum leaps every few years. There's no contest between the look of 1987's original Super Mario Brothers



and 1998s PS2 release of Metal Gear Solid.



But compare Metal Gear Solid to the Xbox 360's Quake 4.



Of course the Xbox 360 is better. But is the difference enough to convince Joe Casual he needs to buy one, much less shell out $600 for a PS3 plus another $2000 for the TV to make that work? (Remember, HDTVs are still only in a small percentage of homes and few consumers will be stopping to consider, much less understand, the limitations of 480p in a gaming console). And will Joe really think the Wii will look that much worse? Especially when he can pick up a Wii for around $200 and it'll look like this:



I'd argue the gameplay will be the more significant factor. Think how many fewer untis the original Xbox would've sold without Halo. So who'll sell more? Only time will tell. But I believe Nintendo's innovative controller puts it on a level playing field with its competitors despite the fact their machine is technically inferior.