-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Techradar: How the Nintendo Wii won the console war
- Thread starter Tripon
- Start date
LegendofLex
Member
PS4 is still too beholden to third-party game makers... now plus indies. People don't generally acknowledge this, but first-party/exclusives made up a bigger share of Xbox's top sellers than they did on PS3.
And PS4's "good position" mostly comes from how much they're cannibalizing Xbox.
Tricky I Shadow
Banned
This guy gets it.
Chinpoko_Master
Member
I don't know. With the way the term "salt" is being applied so broadly these days, it wouldn't surprise me if someone here actually thought I was salty.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Releasing so late in a generation, when buying things day one is bigger than ever before, to an audience who's been waiting for what 5 years? Those are all pretty big reasons to think it will be front loaded. On top of that outside of Nintendo and CoD pretty much every console game has frontloaded sales. If/when they release next gen/PC versions it'll definitely get a big bump though.
Fantastical
Death Prophet
But in those days in each console generation all the consoles brought significantly more power to the table. If the GC hadn't been nearly as powerful the PS2 and closer to the N64 I think you would have seen the same thing. In other words: how do you know that console generations weren't being seen by an advance in power? We'd never seen a generation where that wasn't the case.
I'm not saying I agree with the "Wii U isn't next gen" stuff, but it's kinda BS to say "back in the day" when it wasn't really like that.
TheGreyHulk
Member
i'd argue more in favor of smartphones and tablets being more instrumental at bringing gaming to the masses as they're hundreds of millions of people playing games on smartphones.
More like :
"Wii sold the most ! It is teh bestest console in da world, look at these chartz !"
most of people:
"Most of gaming this gen was on X360/PS3, no way Wii is winner"
For whatever reason, people are totally fine with DS/PSP comparisons even though there's a massive gap there.
Further, how big does the gap in power need to be and how do you measure it? What if something is more powerful in one area but weaker in another? Does novel use of hardware rather than raw power factor in? It's totally arbitrary and not worth discussing because there can't be consensus and it's inconsequential anyway.
Manmademan
Member
The 5 year wait is nothing. the previously most popular game in the franchise, san andreas released 4 years prior, and GTAIV was the first "next gen" GTA. The wait is roughly equivalent between the two.
let's look at this a little more in depth. I'm going to use wikipedia, because really, it's late and I don't have a lot of time to dig through sales charts.
GTAIV:
so, released in 2008. by 2010, it sold 15 million units globally. not bad, considering the PS3 and 360 still had fairly small userbases. but by 2012 it had sold an additional 10 million copies! GTAIV was not frontloaded at all.
Part of the reason is likely because Rockstar developed DLC add ons for GTA that extended the lifespan. similar DLC add ons for V are a certainty.
'most of gaming'? can we combine the wii and ds together then the way you combine two consoles for no real reason?
there seems to be a lot of bitterness/denial/resentment/what have you going on. it's been festering all generation long.
Guys come on admit it. Goalposts have been moved...I wasn't a thread follower back in the Playstation days but was the gaming community always this bitter and self righteous?
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Are you serious man?
nobody is saying which was the best console, (thats up to individual opinion ), merely that it sold the most which is and always has been the measure of console war success.
Maybe this article is a eulogy.
malboroking
Banned
entremet
Member
Wii launched at 250 USD.
JordanN
Banned
Price and probably the hardware. Multiplats were favored on the 360 because the Cell was underutilized back then and the GPU was weaker than Xenos leading to some ugly PS3 games.
It also caused some games to initially stay on 360 (see Gabe Newell refusing to support the Cell).
the 3ds and the wii u are both examples of what nintendo didn't do in the previous generation. there's no immediate hook like 2005's 'just pet the damn dog' or 2006's 'just swing the damn controller'. tablets and 3d were commonplace when the most recent systems launched, and instead of doing something new and inventive, they decided to go back to previous franchises. that's why we have wii fit 3, wii sports 3, nintendogs 2, and brain age 3. they are the 'casual' equivalent of super mario sunshine or the wind waker. ignoring all that, hardware is expensive, battery life is low, and software is pricey.
Sure, the Wii sold the most consoles. But can it tell why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch?
Nightstick11
Banned
What do the Perkels of the world have to even be angry about?
The Wii wiped the floor in the 7th generation. By some metrics, it was the most dominant platform of all time.
There's no getting around this fact, no matter how many goalposts we move.
The Wii wiped the floor in the 7th generation. By some metrics, it was the most dominant platform of all time.
There's no getting around this fact, no matter how many goalposts we move.
Homeconsoles were always devided by mostly power or architecture. IT NEVER was about next console from same producer because there were systems like Atari that released TWO systems in one generation and whole 1st generation which was one big pile of hardware often released one after another. This is why 8 bit 16 bit 32bit were nicknames of generations. Next gen meant " a leap" " new big thing" and meant often vast difference in power.
Currently generation therm doesn't have any meaning and it's what stick. If Nintendo for example will cancel WiiU today and release new console tomorrow it will be still same gen.
Because generation therm became meaningless (because of lack of rules) some people started already using new therm to describe generations "gen". This started at Dice and now is used by EA and i saw already few other non EA people who use that therm. This therm devides consoles by comparable power and starts with first proper 3d consoles gen (PS1/N64)
Manmademan
Member
lol what metric is that? I can't think of a single one that puts it over the PS2, Let alone the NES or Atari 2600.
By most metrics the Wii was about as Dominant as the PS1, but for a far shorter amount of time.
.
Had to check the browser bar multiple times. I thought I accidentally surfed to gamefaqs-forums.
Wii library terri-bad? Wat?
I played so many great games (and especially varied ones, not just primarily grey + brown shooter clones) on Wii. I wouldn't want to miss them.
The first 2D mario platformer on a console after 16 - sixteen - fucking years.
Nightstick11
Banned
The metric where one year of the Wii made more net profit than every platform made by every other hardware manufacturer in the history of video games combined.
Manmademan
Member
inflation, how does it work? "net profit" is not a good way to determine dominance, son- not to mention that every chart you're going to get from nintendo combines the profit from the DS and the Wii together.
The NES was so dominant it owned somewhere around 95% of it's market. The Atari 2600 likely wasn't far off, but there's no reliable sales figures that far back.
When talking dominance, you talk marketshare. anything else is irrelevant. and for those two systems, gamers weren't even aware there WAS competition for the most part. you don't see dominance like that anymore.
MisterHero
Super Member
Well, what's worse? Looking at the charts or denying their statistics? Nevermind the entire squabble ignores Nintendo's portable history.
Someone asked who won, and if the answer is the one with the most money, Nintendo won.
Yeah, they screwed up with Wii U, but it hasn't fudged Wii's legacy like PS3 did to PSX/2. They didn't have massive layoffs or restructure everytime a competitor presented a new idea.
I think PS4 will do really well. For the right reasons to boot.
The best part about Wii U's reception is that, prior to the Wii Remote's reveal, everyone thought it would be a touchpad. Like the one DS has had for years. Now they don't want it or something.AniHawk said:
It's a shame most major games are either too big (AAAA) or too small (mobile, social) for Wii U. Even the platform that agrees to compromise can't get attention.
Nightstick11
Banned
We can adjust for inflation if you want.
And I think every corporation cares about profit. Every single one.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
It sold 50 mil less than the PS2 but made more profit?
Nightstick11
Banned
A lot, lot, lot more.
Manmademan
Member
Tell me, how are you going to adjust the profit for the Atari VCS, when reliable figures for it don't exist? Keep in mind we were in an era where games sold for about $100 a pop in todays money, but could be made by one guy in a garage in 2 weeks.
over it's lifespan it's possible, depending on what Sony spends money on internally (this is where the difference between revenue and operating profit comes from) but in one year? no.
Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!
Member
Link?
yes ? Because we talk here about validity of winning gen in therms of dead console that became irrelevant for most of people where still this gen is going ?
I am no bitter nor self righteous. I see just lack of sense in declaring "a winner" console that is most irrelevant this gen for most of gamers.
I don't argue about Wii selling the most units.
Nightstick11
Banned
I am on my phone so I don't have it on me atm but it is a common image shared in Neogaf. Basically, Sony made 6 billion profit combined from PSOne and PS2. I'm sure a GIS search will bring it up.
Whatever figures you want to use for Atari, it won't beat Nintendo 2006-2011. I'm not gonna go back and forth on this with you. You asked me for a metric where it could be considered the most dominant and I gave you a plausible one. I mean, if you want to argue that profits don't matter, that's your prerogative.
I agree.
Wii is a console to be remembered not 20, but 50 years later. X360 and PS3 no.
Manmademan
Member
you're not going to go back and forth on it, because you can't. Reliable profitability figures for the VCS and similar systems simply don't exist, so your claim is impossible to back up.
in ADDITION, profitability numbers for nintendo are ALWAYS combined with their handheld systems. Do you have profitability numbers for JUST the Wii alone from 2006-2011? I'd love to see that, since no one here is talking about the DS.
claiming nintendo is profitable? sure. no brainer. claiming their CONSOLE SYSTEMS are always more profitable than everyone else combined? that's a little bit harder to back up. There have been charts shown with nintendo showing sky high profits in an era when we KNOW the gamecube was not profitable. It isn't the home systems making bank for nintendo, but their handheld sector, and it's been that way for some time.
a) it is pointless
b) early consoles didn't have any comparable revenue/earnings to latest consoles because back then there wasn't that big gaming market in first place
entremet
Member
Well units sold is the metric used to determined generational winners for ages.
What you're bringing up is subjective opinion, which is fine, but is not empirical.
I hate it when people keep speaking on behalf of "most gamers"
Agent X
Member
The same can be said for several other systems over the last few decades, such as the PlayStation, the NES, and the Atari 2600. All of these systems "brought gaming to the masses".
entremet
Member
Sure. Those also won their generations as well, which is what the Wii did.
Manmademan
Member
yes, but the difference between the NES, the PS1, and the Wii is that the NES and PS1 managed to keep their expanded audience gaming- though the NES lost some of that audience to SEGA.
The Wii's expanded audience seems to have vanished into thin air. They aren't buying wii software, they aren't buying PS360s, they aren't buying wiiUs. They're just gone.
so you could say they brought gaming to masses that weren't all that interested.
I don't like to use "most of gamers" like you said but for Wii i really am sure of that. You can see it clearly @ internet. I can see it clearly on myself, on my friends, on my friends friends.
Wii had some fantastic games but few fantastic games can't make up for all those games it missed.
the wii's audience moved on to facebook and mobile devices. they're not gone, they're just somewhere else. and for a while they were buying kinect.
it's kinda like suggesting the ps2 wasn't really all that because half of its userbase disappeared when really it was just a lot more spread out in the subsequent generation.
Nightstick11
Banned
I don't know what you're on about. I'm talking about the Wii specifically.
I am saying one year of the Wii is more profitable than every hardware platform combined. I'll pick the highest year, I think Wii and DS combined for something between 8-9 billion dollars net profit. Do I know how much was strictly the Wii? Not unless I look through Nintendo's investor report.
Let's be generous to you and assume Wii was responsible for 1/2 that profit (even though Wii sold more games than DS and at a higher price.). Even then, my claim would be true. Even if Wii was only responsible for 25% of that profit, my claim would be true.
what about the games the ps3 missed. or the 360. or the ds. or the psp.
Why are handhelds different? How is EA measuring it and why should anyone accept it?
Claiming that generations are always defined by relative power is essentially saying that generations are undefinable and never were (which is fine by me), since anyone can twist such an ambiguous measurement to suit any trivial argument someone wants to make.
My overall feeling is that arguing that your arbitrary definition is the right one is pretty dumb, regardless of how you're defining it.