Technology aside, WHO the consoles are aimed at are completely different. A parent wanting to buy a system for their children is more likely going to go for the wii because its interactive, can get the kids active, its more affordable and the genre of games are more appealing to young children. It certainly isn't the online experience that made the wii a success. I'd consider the xbox and playstation aimed at a more mature audience, just by looking at the games available, and the features of the two consoles are very different than the wii, such as streaming, bluray playback, 3d, etc.
Attempting to argue using a reductio ad absurdum. Shame people have degenerated to this point. Unlikely. A late 2013 console being released with 4K supports- a resolution that will not see any form of mass consumerism for at least several years. The market isn't ready for it. There are no 4K TV's, optical media, or play back devices anywhere near a reasonable price. You also have a mixed bag of 3840×2160 and 4096×2160 products. The HDMI 1.4 spec only supports 4096×2160 at 24 frames per second - which is why you see products like the Red Cinema projector/player requiring *4* HDMI cables to run.
Exactly like PS3 and 3D movies. It was not at first, but a firmware release later... Based on the people reaction on forum about which console is faster, and seeing people think that MHz/GHz means everything, and that you multiply them by the number of cores a processor has. I won't be surprised if they all believe the PS4 will do 4K, even thought it won't do anything. It all depends on weather Sony believes that 4K TVs will be semi-affordable at the mid life of the PS4 or not. If yes, then they'll market the crap out of it, like they did with the 3D movies/games. If not, then they won't implement it. That simple.
At least you made me laugh this morning GoodBytes. As a gamer and more importantly as a consumer Nintendo is completely dead to me. I'm sick of rehashes of the same games constantly and hardware that is nothing more than a gimmick. My other half bought the Wii on release day and the first time you played it it was a sublime experience. Once the novelty wore off and you realised all it reacted to was some random waving in the air you the Wii for what it really was. This generations karaoke machine. Nintendo sold millions of Wii's but compared to the other consoles they didn't sell many games to the people who bought them. 3rd party devs never really released anything other than "waggle ware" for it and only Nintendo themselves produced quality titles for it and they have a low release late and its the same damn games over and over again. I bet most of the Wii's sold are sitting on a shelf gathering dust right now. I know ours did until we just gave the wretched thing away. It is quite telling that we have had a lot of interest in the next PS and XBOX and practically no reaction at all to the WiiU.
You know 8gb ram going by PlayStation to PlayStation specs isn't too off the wall as a guess. Maybe we'll finally get a Killzone as good looking as that first e3 video
For sure... I think that is more sensible. But you can't deny 2mb > 32mb > 512mb > ?8192mb? There is a common number at play. TBH though, I think the PS3 demonstrates that a good disc medium and standard hdd alleviates some memory problems. I would still though be surprised if they went for a Non-unified Memory Architecture again... unless MS are also doing so, in which case, matching each other spec for spec would be wise.
Actually I am getting a WiiU for Xmas (if Santa is good to me that is!). The concept of the tablet/screen combination interests me as for a long time I have thought it would be a good combination. When I first got the Wii, as you said it was a bit of a novelty, but was great fun at a party. Now, five years on, my kids (who are now 5) love it. What they did with the Wii was astounding and they certainly out-thought both MS and Sony who were not able to re-create the success with their own movement peripherals. I have never been interested in the classic Nintendo stuff (Mario, Zelda etc) but I think that they are on to something with regard to plying more 'gamers' games with the extra peripheral. As to whether it will be successful or not, I am not sure. Microsoft think so as they are playing with their Smart Glass technology (which is essentially the same thing). Regardless it is going to be difficult for Nintendo to convince more 'hard core' gamers that they should try the WiiU. The initial software line-up does look promising though. I am not a Nintendo 'fan boy' by the way (the Wii was the first Nintendo product I have ever bought), but I am interested too see how technology can be utilised for the proper gamer. As I said before the key for any console manufacturer is knowing the market they are aiming at and then convincing publishers to make games for it. As a final broadside, I have also invested in the OUYA - it will be very interesting to see how this does given that it will not necessarily rely on big publishers to produce content for it.
I remembered when I got a Dreamcast and the concept of a screen excited me... looks like we are finally at a convergence of concept and design - both technologically and ergonomically - where it makes sense. The PS3 had that use the PSP to play your PS3 games remotely thing... but it was ****. But yeah... to be fair, Mario Tennis on the N64 was the most fun I ever had in a video game that didn't require 100hrs+ of solitude. But, I myself have more of a different fun in those 100hrs of solitude that I wouldn't trade. Hence enjoying western RPGs and no longer really giving a FAQ about consoles. (Except Red Dead Redemption which makes me sad)
Then you do not understand Nintendo games. So you admit you had fun? Last I checked Nintendo was a toy company. It's an entertainment device. And that's the point of games. If you treat games as your career, then you don't understand the point of games either. Well each console their market, as I said. For me, I don't care who makes what console, if it gives me an experience that I cannot get from the PC, then excellent. I'll buy that console. Whats the point of buying a console that has practically same catalog of games as the PC? Where the game experience is identical, with lower graphics. Even if the product presented is a gimmick, it's still entertainment, its still fun, it still bring people over and everyone has a great time.
I understand Nintendo games perfectly well. I think you should read my post again. It was fun until the novelty wore off and you realised it was a shallow gimmick. I eagerly waited for the next good game to be released for the Wii that would relaise its potentioal but it never came. The N64 (the last Ninty console I had) was the same.
So you are saying that there is no game on the N64 that used the rumble feature and analogue stick properly, despite changing the entire gaming industry. It is now became the absolute norm to have rumble feature on a controller, to a point that people didn't bother buying a PS3 or even looking at it, as it didn't have rumble feature on its controller at first? And also demonstrated how to actually have a camera move in 3D space with the main character, and have proper controls, which also redefined 3D gaming. Passing it from a failed gimmick, to the next evolution in gaming graphics?
Rumble is not a game changer - people don't buy consoles based on the presence of rumble or not, although yes, you can argue that it is now universal. To say the PS3 didn't sell well initially because it had a SIXAXIS controller rather than the now current DualShock3 is ridiculous - the PS3 didn't sell because of its outrageous sticker price of £425, a small initial launch library and poor ports from the 360. Rumble was such a minor "issue" that it isn't even worth mentioning. Nintendo did not invent 3D gaming, or moving a camera in space. Many other games had this prior - Wolfenstein 3D for example - although Nintendo did refine the concept, as is inevitable with time. Nintendo did not "redefine" gaming with the N64, they simply released a popular console with some good games on it and an incredibly bad choice of texture memory quantity.
That is not what I recall. Yes, the console was pricey. But why the console is so expensive yet doesn't have rumble feature... that was the main complain. Why do you think Sony rushed released a controller with rumble? Please re-read what I said. I never claimed that. I said that they done it properly, and redefined 3D gaming. Well that's a nice way to brush it off, even thought every single 3D games that was started to be developed after Super Mario 64, tried to replicate the game controls and camera movement, on all platform, including PC, and is now the norm for any 3D games. I can applied what you said onto anything. I can't even believe I need to defend the credit of some companies... I sound like a total fan boy, because you PS and XBOX fanboys can't except where credit is due that's not from your favorite console.
