Its official, PS3 DELAYS Production Cut 50%

[Lensman]

I think we are in agreement on this point. If gamplay is UNEQUAL, then most likely the better playing game will sell more. This kinda works against Nintendo though. Because of the large stable of in house games, many gamers may not try the Wii. If Madden is Madden across the lines, I think that they will go to the better machine. They must have better gameplay in their exclusive titles to draw new customers in.

First, I'm not sure why you think Nintendo's house games would be a disadvantage to the Wii. Nintendo's titles are some of the most popular in history. Super Mario Bros for the NES is the official Guinness Book of World Records record holder for best-selling game, at over 40 million carts sold. The Mario series is the top-selling series, with over 200 million games sold in the series. If we discounted the original game because it was packaged with the NES (even though it was the killer app that sold the system), that's still 160 million sales of what you consider the same game over and over again. That's more than the total number of Playstation 2, Xbox, and Xbox 360 game systems combined.

Second, the game releases by Nintendo at launch are in the minority - only three. The other 13 titles are from third parties.

Thid, Madden is Madden across all lines except the Wii. The gameplay on the Wii is significantly different because the Wii controller's motion-sensitive capabilities are used for passing, kicking, juking, stiff arms, etc.

Fourth, Nintendo has gone totally for gameplay. That is the whole point of the unconventional controller. Nintendo considers gameplay of paramount importance and graphics of less importance. Sony considers graphics to be of paramount importance. This is why the PS3 has significantly better graphics than either the Wii or Xbox 360.

I think that you must have pulled that article off of CNET. There a number of innacuracies cited to CNET and they were aware of complaints, but still let the article stand. I dug up some more info and have some links for you.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums...ic_id=24983058
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums...ic_id=24963332

This was suprising for a couple of reasons. It appears that they are comparing the Wii to the CURRENT gen XBOX, not the 360. So it looks like the Wii will be SLIGHTLY better than the original XBOX, but not as crisp as the 360. I think that HD and Flat Screen will really seperate the men from the boys on this one. On a SD tv with the yellow video cable, maybe not so much.

As far as graphics go, ATI is holding its purse strings tight. They are developing (developed) the chip for the Wii, but are not releasing details. Nintendo is also being tight lipped. If they are equal or better, I am not sure why they are not tooting that horn. Graphics cards alone will not produce better graphics though, and as a hardcore gamer (proclaimed-by yourself) even the BEST graphics card will scale down to the power of the CPU powering the whole machine. The 360 has 3 CPU running, the Wii has 1. So identical graphics boards would scale down.

All of which I agree with you on. ATI is being very tight-lipped on the Wii's true graphics capabilities, only saying demos that have been seen are "only the tip of the iceberg." However, most industry analysts believe the Wii's graphics are only about 2X those of the Gamecube. I'm inclined to agree, especially considering the system is backwards compatible to the Gamecube. If you'll remember, this is what started our whole "importance of graphics vs. gameplay" argument.

Currently they (Nintendo) is emphisizing the "revolutionairy" control features. Little else. No hard specs, no hard details on the actual hardware. Online capabilities are also very vauge and hard to pin down specifics. Why they are waiting so long to release is a bit of a mystery.

I believe Nintendo is being so secretive about the inner workings because they don't want a lot of advance comparisons of Wii specs vs. competitors' specs overshadowing the way the system actually plays games. Think about how much fun Goldeneye was despite the N64's hardware specs. If you don't know the system is inferior in graphics capability, you can't start authoritatively panning the system because of it. I think it's part of a very carefully planned marketing strategy. Consider, while Nintendo doesn't talk about the main board, they have released a lot of information on the controller, so most speculation is on how the Wii plays in comparison to the competition. I think that's exactly what Nintendo wants.

You are the one with the confusion. Hardcore gamer or not, the DS is a PORTABLE option to game. Unless you are stating that ONLY casual gamers own a DS and Hardcore Gamers lug the 360 around top play? It is a different market (portable vs home based). You introduced portable gaming into the mix, not me. So compare markets that compete, not complement each other.

I'm not saying it's an either/or choice. I am saying more of what could be considered the casual or non-gaming mainstream buy portables like the DS. As you say, it is a different market. According to Nintendo, the market for game systems grew by 8% last year, but if sales of the DS were taken out, the market would have grown by only 2%. Nintendo says the DS made such a difference because 39% of the total number of DS systems sold were bought by traditional non-gamers (the ones playing stuff like Brain Age). The Wii is not Nintendo's attempt to convert Xbox and Playstation 2 owners. It is aimed at the nongaming mainstream that don't own either.

Well, you are correct on the last paragraph. Interestingly though, it has only been touched on briefly, but I do wonder how online gameplay will affect the mix.

Although some readers of this section are averse to online gaming, I think that IT has the potential to make or break the next system as well. I do think that SONY and NINTENDO are making a HUGE mistake by not setting up standards and protocal like XBOX live. As a PC gamer, I am sure you are aware of what a headache it is to get a online game going if the server system sucks. LIVE has been rock solid and very easy to use.

I think online gaming is pretty significant for hardcore gamers. I know most of the industry considers it a major revenue generator in the future and emphasis in the industry is being placed on converting a larger number of game sales to subscription-based services. I think Xbox Live has played a big factor in the success of the Xbox 360. I think this is an area where Microsoft's expertise surpasses Sony.

Nintendo appears to feel nongamers will be less interested in playing online against strange people they don't know than in downloading games to play themselves, and they could be right. From what I've seen of their online service, it's more like cable - download games to play, look at Internet sites, catch up on news and weather, etc. It's a much more casual, personal service.

Your thoughts?

I don't think the minor graphic innovations that have been made over the last few years are significant enough to make or break a system. And while the Wii's graphics aren't the best, I don't think the market Nintendo's after really cares. Currently only 5 million people on the planet know the Xbox 360 has superior graphics and decided to buy one since it was first released. Nintendo states it intends to sell 4 million inferior looking Wii systems in the 43 days from launch to December 31.

Graphics attracts hardcore gamers and the PS3's superior capabilities will likely do well with this audience. This will mean Microsoft and Sony are about to duke it out again. But Sony will have to sell to more than this audience if they're to succeed economically. One Japanese finance show recently predicted that by next year Sony will have lost $85 billion while Nintendo will make $1 billion in profit. With better price point, quality online service, more than a year advance into the market, and graphics that are inferior, but not significantly so, the odds may favor Microsoft in securing a decent portion of the market. The Wii is likely to do well with everyone else.