[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.