69 replies to this topic

[taz546565]

i think it's a good thing hopefully this gives developers confidence enough to throw more resources at it although comapring it ps/xbox launches is silly due to their initial cost and the fact they had nowhere near the amount of established third party support.

[Soul]

Now I want to see game sales numbers.

[Desert Punk]

I think this has been a pretty good launch overall. I think the european numbers are the weakest but then Europe is probably the most recession hit. As a european I may benefit from Nintendo having to fight more here for marketshare and be more competitive on pricing.

The timing of wii u was perfect just before christmas.

I think the wii u has started well and its just about keeping momentum going. It needs exclusive must have triple A games to really sell well.

I personally think Nintendo have made a few mistakes with the wii u regarding price, spec and bundled software so that the package isn't quite as appealing as it could have been.

Looking forward to finally getting my mitts on mine tomorrow.

[Nollog]

Now I want to see game sales numbers.

The launch attach rate was 2.5 I believe one game retailer reported.
That's an average of 2 and a half games per console bought.

[PyroKinesis]

One thing that pops out to me is that the reason all those Wii Us are still on shelves are because of improved supply lines (Like Reggie said). Not because of lack of sales.

This is good, because it shouldn't take almost half a year before you can finally get one if you aren't one of the first people to pre-order on a website, etc.

[Gamejunkie]

You're the one who stated the launch timeframe.

Well you still don't make sense. The technology isn't inferior and there wasn't a lack of games. Besides my point was that the Xbox 360 got a head start plus as a lot of people had already bought one they weren't going to get a $600 PS3 especially when the online functionality on the Xbox 360 is far more robust.

[Nollog]

Well you still don't make sense. The technology isn't inferior and there wasn't a lack of games. Besides my point was that the Xbox 360 got a head start plus as a lot of people had already bought one they weren't going to get a $600 PS3 especially when the online functionality on the Xbox 360 is far more robust.

It was inferior.
It barely played PS2 games at launch.
Had a silly six-axis controller, and the GPU was inferior to the 360.

Also, do I even need to mention PC's ?

Edited by Nollog, 24 December 2012 - 03:37 PM.

[Keviin]

Bravo Nintendo. I had some doubts but not so anymore.

[PedanticGamer]

It was inferior.
It barely played PS2 games at launch.
Had a silly six-axis controller, and the GPU was inferior to the 360.

Also, do I even need to mention PC's ?

Err, the ps3 is more powerful then the 360. So if it was inferior to one kind of gaming platform in terms of hardware it was of course pc, but not any other console at the time. But in there current form consoles will never compete hardware wise with a pc for obvious reasons. Your post is basically either a troll post or that of someone who is a fanboy of a console not sony's.

Also I will say this many times, selling consoles is needed but I would not be surprised if the wii was more successful in the end then the ps3 and 360 as a result of a lack of game sales (remember sony, microsoft take a cut of all sales on there hardware which is usually around 30% from what I read).

Edited by PedanticGamer, 24 December 2012 - 06:24 PM.

[Nollog]

Err, the ps3 is more powerful then the 360.

In like... 2 ways.
GPU - 360
Disc - PS3
CPU - PS3
Games - Draw (Not at launch, 360 obv. was winning then but that is unfair.)
RAM - 360
Sound - 360
Online - 360

[PedanticGamer]

Sigh..... no point talking about an area that has been covered heavily elsewhere so many, many times. Basically your wrong and if you know anything about the hardware you would now as much.

[Nollog]

Yeah, I should believe Sony's hype about the Cell processor. You're right.
They didn't waste a ton of money on something so bad that barely anything runs properly on it.
Their GPU didn't have half the memory the 360 did.
They didn't have half the RAM the 360 did.
They supported all the sound options the 360 did.

Edited by Nollog, 24 December 2012 - 06:34 PM.

[tboss]

... if you want to factor in price, then you should factor in profit, to factor in profit you would need the actual profit from every game soled/ internet/ ect. (not to developers). on that stand id still expect nintendo to rape the other 2.

PS3 and xbox wont compete there till late sales when all the hardcore fanboys with 20+ games paying for live factor in.

[Alex Wolfers]

[Goose]

This guy gets it!


It'll be interesting to see everyone's numbers next year if the nextbox and ps4 are out in the same timefreme. They also have the steambox to contend with!

[syks-1]

ps3 IS more powerful than 360,i have wii u,360 and ps3 and ps3 is best graphics,the new drakes fortune and killzone 3 rape EVERY game on the 360 graphicaly/technicaly and you can tell there not on a 360 straight away.

Im loving the wii u though and expect it to go beyond the current gen when devs get used to it

[BanjoKazooie]

How much did the wii sell??

[Desert Punk]

In like... 2 ways.
GPU - 360
Disc - PS3
CPU - PS3
Games - Draw (Not at launch, 360 obv. was winning then but that is unfair.)
RAM - 360
Sound - 360
Online - 360

The RAM question is a tricky one as they both have near enough the same RAM although its split on PS3 between GPU and CPU. The extra 10MEG of fast video memory of the 360 is slightly reduced by the fact the PS3 has additional cache in a few places. Also all PS3's have hard drives although admittedly the new 12GB model now depletes this somewhat but many PS3 games have a mandatory hard drive install because up to the 12GB model all PS3's have hard drives which isn't true of the 360 which gives the ps3 a virtual memory advantage.

The online bit is also suspect. I don't subscribe to xbox live so have no online functionality for 360 games but have it for my PS3 so the free online feature is a huge advantage to me of the PS3, so you can understand I would have the PS3 as superior in this regard. If I'd have had xbox live for the 7 years of 360 ownership that would have been about £200 spent that I could have used elsewhere.

The main criticism of your list is sound though. Sound is far, far better on PS3. Its huge blu-ray discs means it can often have far more space dedicated to sound and the internal hardware is superior anyway supporting superior audio formats including 7.1. This is such a huge and comprehensive win for the ps3 that I don't understand why you would have put that. The PS3 is easily the king of consoles with regard sound. The xbox 360 never moved on from the original xbox, in fact many have argued the sound hardware in the original xbox is superior as its a dedicated sound chip where as the 360 splits audio between the cpu and a sis chipset. Admittedly the ps3 also uses the power of the cell for some audio processing but then the cell is ideal for that.

[taz546565]

this ps3 xbox argument always comes around i own both systems and they both have their own strengths but in terms of graphics from my opinion the ps3 has definitely got the edge killzone 3 too me has been the best looking fps to date on a console but the xbox is so close it's really not worth splitting hairs over plus id never argue against the online on the xbox being superior.

Edited by taz546565, 25 December 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[Alex Wolfers]

Well you still don't make sense. The technology isn't inferior and there wasn't a lack of games. Besides my point was that the Xbox 360 got a head start plus as a lot of people had already bought one they weren't going to get a $600 PS3 especially when the online functionality on the Xbox 360 is far more robust.

Not him again.