Nintendo Wii beat PS3 at sales.
- Thread starter xxashxx
- Start date
It was on the news this morning and I am glad nintendo is winning because my older brother helped develope the Wii. You can thank him because he helped with most of the stuff we get from nintendo. He helped make some of the pokemon games until 2001 and then he went into R/D on the hardware but not the soft ware for the Wii.
Look at the Japan console sales for 2 weeks ago.
http://www.wiisworld.com/wii-news/wii-pwning-ps3-4-to-1.html
HaHa PS2 is beating PS3.
http://www.wiisworld.com/wii-news/wii-pwning-ps3-4-to-1.html
HaHa PS2 is beating PS3.
That's pretty sad^ but not surprising also. I mean Sony must have been high when making the idea for the PS3. I mean combining Wii's motion turning and Xbox 360's better technology, who wouldn't want to pay $500-$600 for something like that when they can get a good system and good games for $250-$400. I mean let's be realistic here Sony!
The reason why sony is loosing this time is because their systems are to expensive and people are choosing Wii because you can get games from the past that were here before some of us were born. Like actraiser F-zeo super mario world and the first metroid. They are getting Wii so the new generation of us can play the games and the old generation (like me) can still play them and they are good games. Oh KI was a hit in 1995 so I hope they include the KI series because they were awesome games.
I knew it. Wii ftw.
Arcanine out.
Arcanine out.
The thing with the PS3 is not a lot of people are preparred to buy something for that ammount of money.
I mean, it's rather like a toaster. Everyone likes toasters. However, are you preparred to buy a toaster with anti-burn proof filters, crispiness alteration parameters and blue ray dvd toast capabilities for three times the price? Hell no. All you want is a regular toaster.
I mean, it's rather like a toaster. Everyone likes toasters. However, are you preparred to buy a toaster with anti-burn proof filters, crispiness alteration parameters and blue ray dvd toast capabilities for three times the price? Hell no. All you want is a regular toaster.
lol, blue ray toast capabilities.
The price is one of the main reason, But I think the fact that every game for PS3 is probably playable on the PS2, and will probably also get released on it also makes a difference.
I think PS3 is only really worth the money for sony freaks, while Nintendo is worth the money, even for not Nintendo-freaks, and it's a whole new style of play, which probably attracts more people.
The price is one of the main reason, But I think the fact that every game for PS3 is probably playable on the PS2, and will probably also get released on it also makes a difference.
I think PS3 is only really worth the money for sony freaks, while Nintendo is worth the money, even for not Nintendo-freaks, and it's a whole new style of play, which probably attracts more people.
Well, in my opinion, the reason the Wii is winning over the PS3 is the same reason the DS has repeatedly won over the PSP: it's quirky, it's a different way to play gaming, and people seem to want that. It has a lack of internet browsing, a lousy internet system (Friend Codes FTL) and the graphics are par compared to the PSP. Oh, and there's no movie player either. Guess what Sony? No one cares.
I'd love to find that quote that the Sony guys said when the DS first released. It's so funny to see stuff like that blow up in their faces.
Anywho, I know Sony is pushing for the PS3 to be an all-in-one entertainment system, but here's the thing; you may include all the gadgets and whizzers to make it one, but people are ALWAYS GOING TO SEE IT AS A VIDEOGAME SYSTEM. I seem to recall a certain other videogame system a long time ago selling for roughly $700 and it flopped big time. Perhaps Sony didn't get that history lesson taught to them?
When I buy a movie, I really don't care about the "quality" of the movie I buy. Either way it's going to be the same freaking movie, whether it's on DVD, HD, Blu-Ray, or ZOMG1337h4><gr4fix Drive. Plus, if the movie ends up not being so good, I'll have only wasted about $20 on it, as opposed to the $30 that those Hi-Def movies cost.
It's a good deal if you are into that stuff, because actual Blu-Ray players cost about $1000. But if that's Sony's excuse for the system's price being so high, they really are forgeting that the PS name means "videogame system" to a LOT of people. Most of the PS3 games that aren't console-exclusive, like Final Fantasy XIII or Metal Gear (which is rumored to be seeing a 360 release too. Uh-oh, Sony...) aren't even going to be available until the latter half of 2007 and more than likely 2008 anyways. Sports games with PS3 graphics look way too scary. Everyone's really shiny!
The PS2 was a good system. I love mine. It was my console of choice last gen. But the PS3 just doesn't entice me, plus I wanted a Wii ever since they revealed the controller WAY back when.
Anyways, I'm glad to see the Wii doing so well. I'm not surprised at all by this report, but I'm still quite certain that the 360 will take this console war. The Wii is good and all, but out of the three systems, the 360 has the best online service, and if they keep slamming on the Halo and Gears of War games that they've implied they would, I think eventually they'll end up on top with the Wii close in second.
I'd love to find that quote that the Sony guys said when the DS first released. It's so funny to see stuff like that blow up in their faces.
Anywho, I know Sony is pushing for the PS3 to be an all-in-one entertainment system, but here's the thing; you may include all the gadgets and whizzers to make it one, but people are ALWAYS GOING TO SEE IT AS A VIDEOGAME SYSTEM. I seem to recall a certain other videogame system a long time ago selling for roughly $700 and it flopped big time. Perhaps Sony didn't get that history lesson taught to them?
When I buy a movie, I really don't care about the "quality" of the movie I buy. Either way it's going to be the same freaking movie, whether it's on DVD, HD, Blu-Ray, or ZOMG1337h4><gr4fix Drive. Plus, if the movie ends up not being so good, I'll have only wasted about $20 on it, as opposed to the $30 that those Hi-Def movies cost.
It's a good deal if you are into that stuff, because actual Blu-Ray players cost about $1000. But if that's Sony's excuse for the system's price being so high, they really are forgeting that the PS name means "videogame system" to a LOT of people. Most of the PS3 games that aren't console-exclusive, like Final Fantasy XIII or Metal Gear (which is rumored to be seeing a 360 release too. Uh-oh, Sony...) aren't even going to be available until the latter half of 2007 and more than likely 2008 anyways. Sports games with PS3 graphics look way too scary. Everyone's really shiny!
The PS2 was a good system. I love mine. It was my console of choice last gen. But the PS3 just doesn't entice me, plus I wanted a Wii ever since they revealed the controller WAY back when.
Anyways, I'm glad to see the Wii doing so well. I'm not surprised at all by this report, but I'm still quite certain that the 360 will take this console war. The Wii is good and all, but out of the three systems, the 360 has the best online service, and if they keep slamming on the Halo and Gears of War games that they've implied they would, I think eventually they'll end up on top with the Wii close in second.
My brothers hate it, i think its good to have old things too!, such as the original PlayStation , which i have, its good to have old things, because when new ones come out they are obsolete, you ask yourself with the old machines when you thinking of the new and old ones "Why did they not add this/these feature(s) in the first PlayStation?"
, which i have, its good to have old things, because when new ones come out they are obsolete, you ask yourself with the old machines when you thinking of the new and old ones "Why did they not add this/these feature(s) in the first PlayStation?" Well, I had a PSOne as well, but the main thing that made me get a PS2 (Other than Final Fantasy X and Kingdom Hearts) was the included DVD player. That was an okay thing to add because it was already apparent that DVDs were replacing VHS tapes, so it was a better included feature to have. And even then I didn't get a PS2 until the kinks with that DVD player were taken out (my friend's wouldn't play PS2 games because the laser "dulled out.") Plus it played all my PSOne games as well, so it wasn't like I was getting jipped out of anything.
The thing that gets me about the PS3 is that Blu-Ray is relatively new. AND it has a competing format that is more well-known, HD-DVDs. DVDs didn't have that competition, and they didn't cost a substantial amount more than the existing VHS copy of the same movie, unlike the Hi-Def movies today. And we've already seen how "willing" people are to pay for a movie a second time just to watch it on their PSPs...
Also, the backwards compatibility of the PS3 is very glitchy. There's a lengthy list of games that won't work properly because the engine of the PS3 is so different than its predecessor. Sony's solution is that they'll make one giant patch to fix most of the games, but any that still malfunction after that patch is released is SoL. Unlike Microsoft, who is constantly updating the 360's backwards compatible list.
If they offered a stripped-down version of the PS3 that just included the basics that you needed for gameplay, the system would easily be about $400, which is much more reasonable than the $600 price tag it has, especially once you factor in component cables, videogames, a second controller, a memory card adapter for PS2/One games, and tons of other add-ons that "enhance" the PS3 experience.
I think the system has potential, but there are way too many holes in the system right now for someone who doesn't have a 1080i compatible TV or who is well-learned about Hi-Def setup and compatibility. It could be a great system, but it has lots of kinks to work out.
The thing that gets me about the PS3 is that Blu-Ray is relatively new. AND it has a competing format that is more well-known, HD-DVDs. DVDs didn't have that competition, and they didn't cost a substantial amount more than the existing VHS copy of the same movie, unlike the Hi-Def movies today. And we've already seen how "willing" people are to pay for a movie a second time just to watch it on their PSPs...
Also, the backwards compatibility of the PS3 is very glitchy. There's a lengthy list of games that won't work properly because the engine of the PS3 is so different than its predecessor. Sony's solution is that they'll make one giant patch to fix most of the games, but any that still malfunction after that patch is released is SoL. Unlike Microsoft, who is constantly updating the 360's backwards compatible list.
If they offered a stripped-down version of the PS3 that just included the basics that you needed for gameplay, the system would easily be about $400, which is much more reasonable than the $600 price tag it has, especially once you factor in component cables, videogames, a second controller, a memory card adapter for PS2/One games, and tons of other add-ons that "enhance" the PS3 experience.
I think the system has potential, but there are way too many holes in the system right now for someone who doesn't have a 1080i compatible TV or who is well-learned about Hi-Def setup and compatibility. It could be a great system, but it has lots of kinks to work out.
Also people in my area are just getting them to sell them twice as much on ebay. I mean what's the point of that, yes you are going to make one rich boy happy but all in all, you're a ripper and you have no soul and also no respect for Sony.
dmaster out.
dmaster out.