Its official, PS3 DELAYS Production Cut 50%

[Groundbeef]

[QUOTE=LensmanIf what you said about the graphics was factually accurate, you’d be correct because the Wii’s graphics would not be exciting. However, while graphics capabilities have continue to improve, the perceptible improvements have continued to become smaller, and as a result, less important to the nondiscerning general public. (Much as it is in the audio world – consider the iPod.) Hardcore gamers are driven to see the last little detail possible. This is not the case with average consumers. They are much more interested in how fun, involving or different the gameplay experience will be.

Graphics are better on the Xbox 360 than on the Xbox, PS2, or Wii. But “better” is not “exciting”, nor is it “different”. And gameplay mechanics on the Xbox 360 is none of the above. The graphics on the Wii are inferior to the Xbox 360, but not to predecessors – in short, not better, different, or exciting. But the gameplay is very different. And different is exciting. Let’s consider a current example of graphics versus gameplay in motivating consumers to buy:

In 21 months the Xbox 360 has sold around 5.5 million units (we’ll call it 262,000 per month). The Nintendo DS, an infinitely inferior platform technically, but one with gameplay via a different dual touch-screen mechanism has sold in excess of 22 million in 27 months (nearly 815,000 per month) – a three to one per month margin. The lower price point of the DS certainly doesn’t hurt either.
.[/QUOTE]

You are being overly simplistic in your opinion of graphics vs gameplay. The current generation of games are more "exciting" BECAUSE of increased use of 3D modeling, graphics acceleration, anti-analising, etc. Game enviroments are becoming more immersive because they are looking more lifelike, and AI is becoming more intelligent due to increased CPU horsepower, and utilization.

Look back at one of the biggest sellers of all time DOOM. It was hands down the undisputed king of the FPS when it debuted. Then Quake, SWAT, and others came along using similar (or the same) formula. The difference is the graphics engine and programming code. Go back and play the original DOOM. For a few minutes its fun, but not really so much today. People are excited about fancy graphics.
Madden sells because it looks real, and is fun to play.

Second. Where are you getting your numbers? The 360 Debuted on November 22, 2005. Thats about 9 months give or take a few days, far short of your 21 months in your example.

And to compare a hand held game machine and a living room console is in a word stupid. If we follow your example I would suggest that cell phones that play games are far bigger seller than the DS, so the DS must be inferior to my Sanyo Sprint phone that plays Tetris. A better example would have been the PSP vs DS. I don't know sales #'s for either so I can't give a comparison.

""Of the other titles you mention, only Fright Night 3 has cracked the top ten in videogame sales in recent weeks. It’s number 9. And, as you’ve pointed out, its also available on competing platforms. Once again, I don’t need an Xbox 360 to play it. The number one game for the last several weeks has been the non-graphic intensive, educational, problem-solving game Brain Age for the Nintendo DS – which requires a DS to play.""

No you dont NEED a 360 to play FN3, but your not playing the same game if you don't. Please don't think that it is the same game, as it is coded differently for all platforms. Even the 360 vs Xbox title is different. Yes, they are both boxing games, but gameplay is vastly better on the 360. If you haven't tried it in HD, you are missing out.

As for Brain Age, more DS are on the market, it would stand to reason that it would sell more copies than a 360 game. Again, different market, different device.


""At significant additional expense, forcing gamers to choose between a wheel or a new game. And requiring special conditions - a table of adequate height with a lip, suitable chair, and families that don’t mind wires running across the living room floor. What is a casual gamer likely to choose? The Wii’s controller can work well as a sword, tennis racket, golf club, etc. with additional equipment. Inexpenisve plastic wheel and gun frames the controller can clip into are cheap enough they may be packaged with certain games. The controller remain wireless.""

Again, apples to oranges. If you want to play a Flight Sim on a PC, you need additional hardware as well. If you want an immersive enviroment, you get the tools to experience it. It is nonsensical to think that waving the Wii around will approximate a driving simulation, or a flight simulation. Flight paddles, Flight sticks, and Driving gear are not just for the rich and famous. They are not all expensive (some ring out for over $200, but most can be had for less than $50.00) So whats the differnce? You buy a steering wheel, or an attachment for your Wii (hehe...)

""This has been argued before. The 3DO had graphics that kicked but as well. And $700 wasn’t outlandish for the features it offered at the time either especially compared to prices of PCs at the time. This is obviously a formula that does not guarantee success or longevity.""

At the time $700 was considered an OUTLANDISH sum considering consoles were selling for $150-$200. Consoles now cost $250-400 (next gen). Again, a COMPARABLE costing computer to power the games in production would run $2000 plus. Don't kid yourself and think that the $499 Dell is going to work. Its not, and you know it. The power available in consoles today surpasses the power in most desktop computers and they are only coded for playing graphics intense games. No word, no quicken, no fancy GUI interface that hogs memory. Just straight gameplay.


ON a side note. How do you do the "Quote" thing? My posts look like crap because I cannot get the quote thing down.

[westcott]

My predictions are based on two things. BluRay is more expensive and provides an inferior image. It uses older compression technology and current transfers reflect it.

So if you are less expensive and produce better video quality, then you sell more players.

All you have to do is go to the Amazon site to see the difference in sales numbers. Believe me, it is no contest so far. BR has 2644 sales rank, HD DVD has a rank of 292.

[Lensman]

You are being overly simplistic in your opinion of graphics vs gameplay. The current generation of games are more "exciting" BECAUSE of increased use of 3D modeling, graphics acceleration, anti-analising, etc. Game enviroments are becoming more immersive because they are looking more lifelike, and AI is becoming more intelligent due to increased CPU horsepower, and utilization.

I’m afraid you’re beginning to confuse me with the point I’m making. Like you, I’m in the “hardcore gamer” category, having owned many consoles over years and multiple platform at the same time. Neither of us are “casual gamers”. I understand and agree with everything you’re saying about graphics, horsepower, etc. But people like you and I are a small percentage of the overall market.

For a machine to sell in the large volumes necessary to be an economic success in the market, it must appeal to the much larger market of casual gamers. I do know a $499 Dell won’t play graphic and processor intensive PC games well and you know I know it. But I also know most average consumers will buy a $499 Dell and not realize they can’t play Quake 4 on it. And I know you know that.

Graphics acceleration, 3D modeling, anti-aliasing, etc. are great things. And they've gotten better over the years. But do you really believe casual consumers will think Madden NFL 07




is so much more exciting than it’s 8 year old predecessor Madden NFL 99



because of the graphics?

When you played Batman on the Atari 2600, he was a blue square. When you played Mario on the NES he actually looked like a little man. That was exciting. That was the time when graphics meant everything. But over the years, the evolution of graphics has slowed down. All the technology you mention as being exciting has been around since the orginal PSX. Casual gamers have seen it and done it. Current next gen machines have just made refinements. Sure, refinements can occasionally be exciting. But in light of the diminished differences between graphics on recent platforms, most people are more likely to be swayed by other, more prominent factors – such as the potential of Wii’s controller to change how games are played. This alone is sufficient for the casual market to consider the machine next gen – despite the graphics being not quite as good.

Look back at one of the biggest sellers of all time DOOM. It was hands down the undisputed king of the FPS when it debuted. Then Quake, SWAT, and others came along using similar (or the same) formula. The difference is the graphics engine and programming code. Go back and play the original DOOM. For a few minutes its fun, but not really so much today. People are excited about fancy graphics.
Madden sells because it looks real, and is fun to play.

Do people still play Pac Man and Missile Command? Do they still buy game machines to plug into their TVs to play Galaga (you know, those battery operated joysticks you see everywhere)? Do people install emulators on their PCs to play Atari and Gameboy games? Do people still play Doom’ predecessor Wolfenstein? Yes they do. And I’ll bet if you ask these people why when the graphics are so unacceptably pathetic, they’ll tell you it’s because the games are FUN. As for Madden, there's been a number of times over the years the new game has gotten poor reviews because, while the graphics were better, the gameplay was worse than the prior version.

Gameplay can be just as exciting as graphics. In a “pick only one” decision, many will choose better gameplay over better graphics. Gameplay could in fact be considered more important by most gamers. I’m sure you’ll agree that if a game is really bad, no amount of flashy graphics will save it. There are countless examples of this and their sales figures show the result. The Nintendo console is focused on gameplay and the company has an established reputation of producing games with quality gameplay. This is likely to be a powerful draw for gamers - casual or otherwise.

Second. Where are you getting your numbers? The 360 Debuted on November 22, 2005. Thats about 9 months give or take a few days, far short of your 21 months in your example.

Sorry, you’re correct. The Xbox came out 1 year after the Nintendo DS (November 21, 2004). The total units sold is correct. That makes it 550,000 Xbox 360s per month vs. 1 million per month of the DS. Did it in my head. Bad, bad, math.

And to compare a hand held game machine and a living room console is in a word stupid. If we follow your example I would suggest that cell phones that play games are far bigger seller than the DS, so the DS must be inferior to my Sanyo Sprint phone that plays Tetris. A better example would have been the PSP vs DS. I don't know sales #'s for either so I can't give a comparison.

Is it? The Xbox 360 and DS have different focuses (portable vs. family room), but both are sold to gamers exclusively as gaming platforms. Cell phones are not sold exclusively to gamers, casual or otherwise. Cell phones are not sold exclusively on their merits as game machines.

No you dont NEED a 360 to play FN3, but your not playing the same game if you don't. Please don't think that it is the same game, as it is coded differently for all platforms. Even the 360 vs Xbox title is different. Yes, they are both boxing games, but gameplay is vastly better on the 360. If you haven't tried it in HD, you are missing out.

And you’re telling me a casual gamer would do the research needed to determine this?

As for Brain Age, more DS are on the market, it would stand to reason that it would sell more copies than a 360 game. Again, different market, different device.

Yes, it’s aimed at the larger casual gaming market. You’re making my point for me.

Again, apples to oranges. If you want to play a Flight Sim on a PC, you need additional hardware as well. If you want an immersive enviroment, you get the tools to experience it. It is nonsensical to think that waving the Wii around will approximate a driving simulation, or a flight simulation. Flight paddles, Flight sticks, and Driving gear are not just for the rich and famous. They are not all expensive (some ring out for over $200, but most can be had for less than $50.00) So whats the differnce? You buy a steering wheel, or an attachment for your Wii (hehe...)

You and I will buy the items to enhance our experience whether they’re for a Wii or anything else. But most casual gamers don’t buy expensive input peripherals. They will buy a machine and expect it to provide all the quality gameplay with what it came with. The Wii’s out-of-the-box controller has the protential to offer a radically different and thus, more exciting, experience than the controllers that come with the Xbox 360 or PS3.

At the time $700 was considered an OUTLANDISH sum considering consoles were selling for $150-$200. Consoles now cost $250-400 (next gen). Again, a COMPARABLE costing computer to power the games in production would run $2000 plus. Don't kid yourself and think that the $499 Dell is going to work. Its not, and you know it. The power available in consoles today surpasses the power in most desktop computers and they are only coded for playing graphics intense games. No word, no quicken, no fancy GUI interface that hogs memory. Just straight gameplay.

In 1993, the 3DO was $700 and an entry level PC (33Mhz 486, 8MB RAM, 210MB hard drive, 15-inch monitor) was $2,200 - a difference of $1,500.* 486s could run up to 100Mhz and Pentiums were released that year, so this PC was nowhere near a gaming level machine in power or price either. If anything, it was easier to choose a 3DO to get a top quality game experience based on price.

*Producer Price Indexes, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics – since I’m using numbers here and you inquired.

ON a side note. How do you do the "Quote" thing? My posts look like crap because I cannot get the quote thing down.

Set it up like this without the asterisks:
[*QUOTE=Lensman*]Stuff I want to quote.[*/QUOTE*]

[Groundbeef]

Do people still play Pac Man and Missile Command? Do they still buy game machines to plug into their TVs to play Galaga (you know, those battery operated joysticks you see everywhere)? Do people install emulators on their PCs to play Atari and Gameboy games? Do people still play Doom’ predecessor Wolfenstein? Yes they do. And I’ll bet if you ask these people why when the graphics are so unacceptably pathetic, they’ll tell you it’s because the games are FUN. As for Madden, there's been a number of times over the years the new game has gotten poor reviews because, while the graphics were better, the gameplay was worse than the prior version.

Yes of course people still play the older games. However, old games are played for nostalgia (sp), and a few other tangibles. There is something about sitting down and playing Missle Command for a while. No saves, no pauses, no "easy" setting. Its just straight gaming at its core. But for games looking for story and depth they cannot replace the new games that are out and coming out.

Gameplay can be just as exciting as graphics. In a “pick only one” decision, many will choose better gameplay over better graphics. Gameplay could in fact be considered more important by most gamers. I’m sure you’ll agree that if a game is really bad, no amount of flashy graphics will save it. There are countless examples of this and their sales figures show the result. The Nintendo console is focused on gameplay and the company has an established reputation of producing games with quality gameplay. This is likely to be a powerful draw for gamers - casual or otherwise.

You seem to be making the point that it's always and either/or choice. Either I get a system with less horsepower and better games, or more horsepower and poor games. I think that is incorrect. Of course you can have flashy graphics and a piss poor story, but not always. Look at System Shock (1 and 2) very undersold, but at the respective release dates they had both. GTA (like it or not) was a hugely fun game with graphics and freedom NEVER experienced in gaming before, and not matched nearly as I would like lately. Oblivion is also an example of open-ended environments where the player chooses the path to take, not the invisible "rails" that ruined Doom 3 (very pretty, but boring). I think that there are many more innovative games on the horizon that will have both the graphics/gameplay matched. All the good games have not been made yet.

Is it? The Xbox 360 and DS have different focuses (portable vs. family room), but both are sold to gamers exclusively as gaming platforms. Cell phones are not sold exclusively to gamers, casual or otherwise. Cell phones are not sold exclusively on their merits as game machines.

No, your right, so compare apples to apples DS vs PSP. Not living room console vs handheld gaming device.

You and I will buy the items to enhance our experience whether they’re for a Wii or anything else. But most casual gamers don’t buy expensive input peripherals. They will buy a machine and expect it to provide all the quality gameplay with what it came with. The Wii’s out-of-the-box controller has the protential to offer a radically different and thus, more exciting, experience than the controllers that come with the Xbox 360 or PS3.

Assuming that it is used, and implemented properly. I can also see it becoming a "1 trick pony" where after the excitement of the fishing "casting" and "batting" (baseball) wears off, people will grow tired of the constant motion. Who wants to wear themselves out playing a game? I will lay money down that Nintendo has a standard controller in the works as well if it doesn't revolutionize gaming.

And you’re telling me a casual gamer would do the research needed to determine this?.

With regards to new games such as FN3? Yes, I do belive that gamers DO research games and systems before purchase. XBOX, PS, and PC gamer magazine and the countless other gamer rags are in business because people don't shop willy-nilly for games just blindy tossing $40-60 games in their carts. Maybe around the holidays when mom or dad go shopping they may rely on what they think looks "fun".
And as far as additional "research" I can't think of a single game store that doesn't have a kiosk with the latest machines to test before buying a game. Heck, even my local Target/Meijer/Walmart have machines set up. Certainly any game store such as EB, Game Crazy, BB Games all are set up for people to play and try out games. And yes, visually it should only take about 1 glance at the screen to see the difference between the PS2 version of FN3 and the 360. A friend of mine has it for his PS2, and about crapped when he saw it on HD in my living room. He said it is night and day, and PLAYS better. Better animations, better movement, and gameplay was smoother.

[Lensman]

I think there's a fundamental fact that you're just not getting:

In the universe you've established for your arguments there are two types of peope: non-gamers and gamers. Non-gamers don't play. Gamers are into everything related to gaming absolutely and unreservedly.

In reality there are three types of people: non-gamers, casual gamers, and hard-core gamers. The first type, non-gamers, don't play so are irrelavent to the discussion.

The second type, the hard-core gamers, are just as you describe. They are tech saavy, have the latest next gen machines and top level PCs, and are willing to pay top dollar for consoles, games, and services. They prefer games that are complex, deep, action-oriented, and violent. They hunger for game-related information (often knowing vast amounts of information about a system before it's released), and (surprise!) enjoy discussing their hobby with friends and on forums.

The third type appears to be unfamiliar to you because you persist in ignoring them in my posts. These "casual gamers" are the rest of the folks who buy and play console games. They can be anybody from the sports fan who only plays Madden to the dad who plays Cars to connect with the kids to your mom who takes a break from her Quicken bookkeeping to play Zuma. These people are not tech saavy. The do not always buy the latest, greatest console or PC. They may have strong aversions to adult, violent, or edgy content. They are more likely to rent a game, play it a few hours, and never touch it again. They don't buy gaming magazines or search out info on upcoming systems. And they'll never read anything you and I have written to each other. These individuals vastly outnumber the "hardcore gamers". These people are the target market for Nintendo.

If this rendition of reality just doesn't sound right, Google "casual vs. hardcore gamer" and start checking out the 831,000 links on the subject.

Yes of course people still play the older games. However, old games are played for nostalgia (sp), and a few other tangibles. There is something about sitting down and playing Missle Command for a while. No saves, no pauses, no "easy" setting. Its just straight gaming at its core. But for games looking for story and depth they cannot replace the new games that are out and coming out.

The "other tangibles" you refer to is "gameplay". They play these games because they LIKE them. They LIKE them because they are FUN to PLAY. They wouldn't PLAY them if they were NOT FUN to play. The way a GAME is PLAYED is referred to as GAMEPLAY. The "something about sitting down and playing Missle Command" is "gameplay". When you say "Its just straight gaming at its core" you mean the game "has good gameplay".

Any game system that has games with great gameplay will succeed, regardless of their graphics capabilities because games that play well appeal to everyone. That's why the Atari 2600 is still sold. It's why the 3DO isn't. Which would you rather play today, Pitfall or Night Trap? It's why you'll never hear anyone respected in the gaming industry dissing Super Mario Bros. despite the fact that it's a "kids game."

The graphics on the Xbox 360 are great. But Microsoft won't be out of the woods until they have at least one title with outstanding gameplay and thematic appeal that can reach the "casual gamer" market. They need a Mario, or a Sonic. Then they'd truly crush the competition. Until then, they'll be susceptible to the PS3 and Wii.

You seem to be making the point that it's always and either/or choice. Either I get a system with less horsepower and better games, or more horsepower and poor games. I think that is incorrect. Of course you can have flashy graphics and a piss poor story, but not always. Look at System Shock (1 and 2) very undersold, but at the respective release dates they had both. GTA (like it or not) was a hugely fun game with graphics and freedom NEVER experienced in gaming before, and not matched nearly as I would like lately. Oblivion is also an example of open-ended environments where the player chooses the path to take, not the invisible "rails" that ruined Doom 3 (very pretty, but boring). I think that there are many more innovative games on the horizon that will have both the graphics/gameplay matched. All the good games have not been made yet.

No. I am saying that that are two main considerations people take into account when they consider a system: 1. Graphics. 2. Gameplay. Any system that has both will rule. I am also saying that of the two, graphics are the less important aspect to the "casual gamer". Remember, these are NOT the "hardcore gamers" The hardcore gamers won't stand for graphics that fall below the standard of bleeding edge. The casual gamers won't care as long as the graphics are "pretty good". The Wii's graphics are not great. They are pretty good. For "casual gamers" the graphics on the Wii will be considered good enough.

Nintendo has placed great emphasis on gameplay. Much more than either Sony or Microsoft. This doesn't mean the Wii will have great gameplay. How the games make use of the Wii's controller's capabilities will determine that. What I am saying is the Wii has the potential to have better gameplay than either the PS3 or the Xbox 360.

No, your right, so compare apples to apples DS vs PSP. Not living room console vs handheld gaming device.

It's an irrelevant comparison to the discussion. The point of which was that people will play games they want to play and that decision will be reflected in the number of units sold.

Assuming that it is used, and implemented properly. I can also see it becoming a "1 trick pony" where after the excitement of the fishing "casting" and "batting" (baseball) wears off, people will grow tired of the constant motion. Who wants to wear themselves out playing a game? I will lay money down that Nintendo has a standard controller in the works as well if it doesn't revolutionize gaming.

Yes, Nintendo's odd new controller could fail abysmally. But when one considers the success of effort intensive games like Dance Dance Revolution, one can see how it could also succeed greatly.

With regards to new games such as FN3? Yes, I do belive that gamers DO research games and systems before purchase. XBOX, PS, and PC gamer magazine and the countless other gamer rags are in business because people don't shop willy-nilly for games just blindy tossing $40-60 games in their carts. Maybe around the holidays when mom or dad go shopping they may rely on what they think looks "fun".
And as far as additional "research" I can't think of a single game store that doesn't have a kiosk with the latest machines to test before buying a game. Heck, even my local Target/Meijer/Walmart have machines set up. Certainly any game store such as EB, Game Crazy, BB Games all are set up for people to play and try out games. And yes, visually it should only take about 1 glance at the screen to see the difference between the PS2 version of FN3 and the 360. A friend of mine has it for his PS2, and about crapped when he saw it on HD in my living room. He said it is night and day, and PLAYS better. Better animations, better movement, and gameplay was smoother.

Sorry to disappoint. But again, "casual gamers" do NOT research. Who do you think keeps buying horrifically bad movie tie-in games year after year? Let's take your magazine example. By 2004, Sony had sold 29 million PS2s. Microsoft had sold 8.6 million Xboxs. Plus another 39 million PSXs were floating around (I'll point out here that Sony continued to sell the PSOne after they released the PS2. Who do you think bought those inferior machines?). That's a grand total of 76.6 million machines. So how many people bought PSM and Official Xbox Magazine on an averaged month? The answer is 1.1 million. That less than 1.5% of the number of console owners. Now you could argue that the other 98.6% of the gamers (call it 75.5 million) conducted research by standing in front of display at Wal-Mart and Best Buy or by going over to a friend's house. But I think you'd have a difficult time proving your case. In actuality, the majority (the "casual gamers") didn't do any research because they just didn't care enough. Again I refer you to Google, where you can do your own research.

ok, guys, this is hilarious to read...

Thank you. Glad I can provide some entertainment - even if it's not graphics intensive.

[Groundbeef]

I think there's a fundamental fact that you're just not getting:

In the universe you've established for your arguments there are two types of peope: non-gamers and gamers. Non-gamers don't play. Gamers are into everything related to gaming absolutely and unreservedly.

In reality there are three types of people: non-gamers, casual gamers, and hard-core gamers. The first type, non-gamers, don't play so are irrelavent to the discussion.

The second type, the hard-core gamers, are just as you describe. They are tech saavy, have the latest next gen machines and top level PCs, and are willing to pay top dollar for consoles, games, and services. They prefer games that are complex, deep, action-oriented, and violent. They hunger for game-related information (often knowing vast amounts of information about a system before it's released), and (surprise!) enjoy discussing their hobby with friends and on forums.

The third type appears to be unfamiliar to you because you persist in ignoring them in my posts. These "casual gamers" are the rest of the folks who buy and play console games. They can be anybody from the sports fan who only plays Madden to the dad who plays Cars to connect with the kids to your mom who takes a break from her Quicken bookkeeping to play Zuma. These people are not tech saavy. The do not always buy the latest, greatest console or PC. They may have strong aversions to adult, violent, or edgy content. They are more likely to rent a game, play it a few hours, and never touch it again. They don't buy gaming magazines or search out info on upcoming systems. And they'll never read anything you and I have written to each other. These individuals vastly outnumber the "hardcore gamers". These people are the target market for Nintendo.

If this rendition of reality just doesn't sound right, Google "casual vs. hardcore gamer" and start checking out the 831,000 links on the subject.

Oh, I've been schooled everyone, take note. I am argueing the same people you are. Non-gamers are as you said "irrelevent".

The "other tangibles" you refer to is "gameplay". They play these games because they LIKE them. They LIKE them because they are FUN to PLAY. They wouldn't PLAY them if they were NOT FUN to play. The way a GAME is PLAYED is referred to as GAMEPLAY. The "something about sitting down and playing Missle Command" is "gameplay". When you say "Its just straight gaming at its core" you mean the game "has good gameplay".

Any game system that has games with great gameplay will succeed, regardless of their graphics capabilities because games that play well appeal to everyone. That's why the Atari 2600 is still sold. It's why the 3DO isn't. Which would you rather play today, Pitfall or Night Trap? It's why you'll never hear anyone respected in the gaming industry dissing Super Mario Bros. despite the fact that it's a "kids game."

The graphics on the Xbox 360 are great. But Microsoft won't be out of the woods until they have at least one title with outstanding gameplay and thematic appeal that can reach the "casual gamer" market. They need a Mario, or a Sonic. Then they'd truly crush the competition. Until then, they'll be susceptible to the PS3 and Wii.

If you do a search for who the "nostalgia" market is aimed at it is males 25-35 that grew up with those games. If I were to fill an arcade in the local mall with game machines that were popular in 1980, and none of the games of today, I might as well just light my cash on fire. People play old games because they grew up with them. If you give a young "new" gamer 10-14 an atari 2600 to play now, you would be laughed out of the living room. You are correct that gameplay IS important. But if you have NEVER experienced the "WOW" that you got when the 2600 was new, you will NEVER feel it now.

No. I am saying that that are two main considerations people take into account when they consider a system: 1. Graphics. 2. Gameplay. Any system that has both will rule. I am also saying that of the two, graphics are the less important aspect to the "casual gamer". Remember, these are NOT the "hardcore gamers" The hardcore gamers won't stand for graphics that fall below the standard of bleeding edge. The casual gamers won't care as long as the graphics are "pretty good". The Wii's graphics are not great. They are pretty good. For "casual gamers" the graphics on the Wii will be considered good enough.

Nintendo has placed great emphasis on gameplay. Much more than either Sony or Microsoft. This doesn't mean the Wii will have great gameplay. How the games make use of the Wii's controller's capabilities will determine that. What I am saying is the Wii has the potential to have better gameplay than either the PS3 or the Xbox 360.

Who are you to speak for everyone? This is conjecture on your part. Maybe graphics are not as important for you, but for others it is paramount. This is a TOMATO, TA-MA-TOE arguement. And the Wii has potential to have better gameplay? Sure it does. As does the 360, or PS3. And all things being equal, if all have the same gameplay, graphics trump less quality graphics.

It's an irrelevant comparison to the discussion. The point of which was that people will play games they want to play and that decision will be reflected in the number of units sold.

That is NOT the point and you know it. It is impractical to carry around a flat panel TV, Power supply, XBOX 360 console, and controllers to play a game on the way to work, or to keep the kids quiet traveling. Quit trying to muddy the waters on your weak argument.

You are dodging the question asked. Again, compare apples to apples. Your example is like asking what car is better, the Porche 911, or the Dodge Caravan. Oh, looks like the caravan is WAY BETTER because it sold way more. If you compare similar systems the numbers are much closer:

DS has sold 22 million world wide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS Released 12-02-2004
Sony has sold 20.2 million world wide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_PSP Released 12-12-2004

In the HAND HELD game machine, the DS has sold approx 10% more. Keep in mind that its price is more than $100 cheaper as well. Now the advantage is a bit murkier.

Sorry to disappoint. But again, "casual gamers" do NOT research. Who do you think keeps buying horrifically bad movie tie-in games year after year? Let's take your magazine example. By 2004, Sony had sold 29 million PS2s. Microsoft had sold 8.6 million Xboxs. Plus another 39 million PSXs were floating around (I'll point out here that Sony continued to sell the PSOne after they released the PS2. Who do you think bought those inferior machines?). That's a grand total of 76.6 million machines. So how many people bought PSM and Official Xbox Magazine on an averaged month? The answer is 1.1 million. That less than 1.5% of the number of console owners. Now you could argue that the other 98.6% of the gamers (call it 75.5 million) conducted research by standing in front of display at Wal-Mart and Best Buy or by going over to a friend's house. But I think you'd have a difficult time proving your case. In actuality, the majority (the "casual gamers") didn't do any research because they just didn't care enough. Again I refer you to Google, where you can do your own research.

Again, conjecture. This is not true. People may not "research" as much as you or I, but there is some research in ANY purchase with the exception of the very small (IE, candy bar at gas station). It may not go to the depth of others, but there is some. Talking to friends, reading ad copy, playing it by rental, playing it at a friends house. There is much research that can be done without surfing the web or reading a magazine. You are fooling yourself if you think that kids don't talk about what games are coming out or who has what system. Go to a school sometime, (I sub teach) it is amazing how much kids in Jr High/High school talk about games. Just because YOU think a game is bad, doesn't make it so. If a game sells a million copies, someone must like it.

Thank you. Glad I can provide some entertainment - even if it's not graphics intensive.

[Lensman]

Oh, I've been schooled everyone, take note. I am argueing the same people you are. Non-gamers are as you said "irrelevent".

Sorry if I came off too forward. It was late when I wrote the last post, I have a cold, and for fun, I threw some Nyquil in the mix. I enjoy debating this with you and I assume you’re still having fun speculating (as you told Sir TT). If so, I’ll continue.

I still don’t have the impression from the views you attribute to all gamers that you understand the gaming market is not one homogenous group unified with the same set of priorities (in your case graphics). If anything it is even more fragmented than the simplified non-gamer, casual gamer, hardcore gamer model I present.

If you do a search for who the "nostalgia" market is aimed at it is males 25-35 that grew up with those games. If I were to fill an arcade in the local mall with game machines that were popular in 1980, and none of the games of today, I might as well just light my cash on fire. People play old games because they grew up with them. If you give a young "new" gamer 10-14 an atari 2600 to play now, you would be laughed out of the living room. You are correct that gameplay IS important. But if you have NEVER experienced the "WOW" that you got when the 2600 was new, you will NEVER feel it now.

Yet the games are still sold in mass-market retail outlets everywhere. These games are still in machine form or sold in special collections for high-end consoles. They are still being produced in coin operated arcade machine format to be mixed in with the new games. Are all these companies “lighting their cash on fire”? I’d wager the companies selling them aren’t so foolish and there’s a market buying them that’s large enough to merit them sold at so many big box retailers. I’d wager they’re not just bought by a small niche market of old hardcore gamers looking for a bit of nostalgia.

Who are you to speak for everyone? This is conjecture on your part. Maybe graphics are not as important for you, but for others it is paramount. This is a TOMATO, TA-MA-TOE arguement. And the Wii has potential to have better gameplay? Sure it does. As does the 360, or PS3. And all things being equal, if all have the same gameplay, graphics trump less quality graphics.

I never said graphics aren’t important. If the Wii had graphics no better than a Pac Man game it wouldn’t sell.

You say if games have equal gameplay, the one with better graphics will sell better.

I’m saying if gameplay is UNEQUAL, the game that’s considered more fun will sell better – even if the graphics are not as good.

I am saying Nintendo is more focused on gameplay than Microsoft or Sony. I am saying the Wii’s advertised graphics are not alarmingly bad to h majority of gamers.

This does, of course, begin with the assumption that the Xbox 360 does infact have superior graphics – a position I’m willing to go along with on. But it may not even be true. Consider some of the recent news on the Wii such as:

“NEC has revealed that Nintendo Wii will use the same NEC eDRAM for its graphics processing, which powers the Xbox 360 as well.

With 10MB of fast RAM embedded in the graphics chip, the NEX eDRAM allows enough buffer space for anti-aliasing to be added to graphics ‘for free’.

The same technology is used in Xenos, the graphics chip for the Xbox 360, and Wii is following Xbox 360 footsteps by including it in their ‘Hollywood’ graphics chip. Note that both graphics chips are developed by ATI.

Whilst some have been speculating that the Wii will lack the visual quality of the Xbox 360 and the PS3, this latest announcement seems to suggest that Nintendo is serious about graphics.

What’s slightly odd is that the Wii is rumoured to lack high-definition outputs, which is really where anti-aliasing is needed - AA on standard definition isn’t really a good use of hardware. Could this mean the eDRAM is being used for something else?

Games journalists at E3 were generally underwhelmed with the Wii’s graphics, but this is because Nintendo had the games running on Revolution-ised Gamecubes with the Wiimote attachment.”

And:

“According to our source the Nintendo Wii will be visually on par with the Xbox 360 and may even exceed it slightly. This “mole” also says that the Wii will not be comparable with Playstation 3, which will be a vastly technically superior machine. The Wii has no HD capabilities but it connects to a computer monitor, the informer says this means something…”

Whether you believe the implications of these reports or not, I’d say Nintendo appears to have learned from past mistakes and made some wise choices on what to emphasize in terms of console features and target market. These choices could make it a strong competitor.

That is NOT the point and you know it. It is impractical to carry around a flat panel TV, Power supply, XBOX 360 console, and controllers to play a game on the way to work, or to keep the kids quiet traveling. Quit trying to muddy the waters on your weak argument.

You are dodging the question asked. Again, compare apples to apples. Your example is like asking what car is better, the Porche 911, or the Dodge Caravan. Oh, looks like the caravan is WAY BETTER because it sold way more. If you compare similar systems the numbers are much closer:

DS has sold 22 million world wide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_DS Released 12-02-2004
Sony has sold 20.2 million world wide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_PSP Released 12-12-2004

In the HAND HELD game machine, the DS has sold approx 10% more. Keep in mind that its price is more than $100 cheaper as well. Now the advantage is a bit murkier.

I do not compare the DS to the PSP because the point was not to compare equivalent systems by different manufacturers. Nor am I attempting to imply an Xbox is worse than a DS. It was instead an illustration to the point that casual gamers have different expectations of their gaming machines (as you say “to play a game on the way to work, or to keep the kids quiet traveling”, to be “cheaper”, etc.) than hardcore gamers and, by the numbers, to show this group of people are the larger of the two target markets.

Again, conjecture. This is not true. People may not "research" as much as you or I, but there is some research in ANY purchase with the exception of the very small (IE, candy bar at gas station). It may not go to the depth of others, but there is some. Talking to friends, reading ad copy, playing it by rental, playing it at a friends house. There is much research that can be done without surfing the web or reading a magazine. You are fooling yourself if you think that kids don't talk about what games are coming out or who has what system. Go to a school sometime, (I sub teach) it is amazing how much kids in Jr High/High school talk about games. Just because YOU think a game is bad, doesn't make it so. If a game sells a million copies, someone must like it.

Granted your position as a substitute teacher affords you a unique insight into a portion of the potential market. But it’s not a good one to base your perception of the total buying public on. According to the Entertainment Software Association, 83 percent of the current buyers of console games are OVER the age of 18. Also, parents are involved when games are purchased, with players under the age of 18 saying their parents were present at the point-of-sale 89 percent of the time. These people are the ones who make the final buying decisions.

In actuality, the current average game player is 33 years old. But more interestingly, the average age of the most frequent game buyer is 40 years old. I never said this is a demographic that conducts no research in a casual fashion such as you mention above. I am saying this demographic consists primarily of casual gamers who will more likely NOT conduct the research needed to know that FN3 plays differently on different platforms, nor will they care enough if they did know it to consider buying another multi-hundred dollar console as a result.

Also, I never said a game that sells a million copies is bad. In today’s numbers, it’s quite good. But a single game selling a million copies, or even multiple games selling a million copies will not give any particular console dominance. Simply look at the first Xbox. I’m saying we’re about to be in another three-way battle and the Xbox 360 (or the PS3 or the Wii) will need at least one title (and preferably more than one) that sells in numbers much higher than a million if it is to establish a position of market dominance. This could be critical as the industry has never successfully had three system coexist.