Nintendo to reconsider better graphics after high-def "takes off"

Nintendo is taking the same route with HD as it did with online, waiting until its profitable, look at Sony and MS how much money they've lost on their consoles, Nintendo is in it to make money, and if that means downscaling the power then that's what they'll do, if Wii is a scussess, they'll release in 4-5 years a new console with motion sensing and HD quality graphics.

Ok, Sony and microsoft are forcing the HD issue. More so Sony, It's being crammed down our necks. Sony's console isn't that much if at all more powerful then the 360 it is only because it has a Blue-ray player in it which is only in there so Sony can get a massive foothold in the next gen media war which has only just kicked off with only the very rich or the stupid bothered about.
The avaerage Joe does not even know what blueray is and certainly wouldn't spend the amount of money on a player or a PS3. Most people who say they want a PS3 or are waiting for one don't even know how much it costs, When they find out they don't want one anymore. Add to that the fact that you really need a HD tele, of which not many households have at all and if they do its only the one in the front room its going to take at least another 3/4 years before there is a common base of HD tele users etc. At least! Because the difference between HD quality and DVD quality to uncle bob is tiny and he couldn't care less so the systems ( 360 & ps3 ) although they will sell the majority of owners will not be using them on a HD tele.

Nintendo have got it spot on nearly. I would of liked to see the Wii be a bit beefier. Only a little but then maybe it is and im just thinking of zelda at the moment because its basically a gamecube port. When you look at Mario the visuals are pretty damn good. The average joe will want one because its available, The games are cheeper there will be more games, the control is easier to use, its new, its fun and younger kids as well as older people can play together unlike the very hardcore appeal that the 360 and PS3 have. Sure the PS3 will sell and more so when the price drops but Sony would have lost a massive amount of money and will still be pouring money into the PS3 while nintendo rake it in form day 1 and pour it all into their next console which I would take a guess will come out along with microsofts next offering with Sony lagging a couple of years behind.

#50

You're just about recycling the same excuses they gave with the Gamecube, and we see what good that did them.

>There isn't one. Nintendo just wanted to protect its precious profit margin, and going HD would have required them to put more hardware into the system than they did.<

Exactly. They would've lost money. Losing money just for something that "may" become popular in the future is kind of a bad idea. One, you're losing money, and two, constantly losing money ain't a sustainable business practice.

As has been said many times before: businesses are for making money. Sony and Microsoft may arguably have better consoles, but they have worse business plans. Nintendo will only bother with HD output if HDTVs become popular, instead of the niche market they are now.

I love my mom too, but nothing short of a Cliff Richards game would get her to play anything.

No, but Nintendo never wants to sacrifice. Heck, even if Nintendo just added more to the Wii to just break even it would be such a better console.

Sony sacrificed with the PS1 and PS2 and sold the consoles at a loss initially. What do they have to show for it? HUGE software (and now hardware) profits and a brand that is now MORE synonymous with gaming than Nintendo's, which not allows them to get away with releasing 600$ consoles. Sony took the risk, followed through, and it paid off big time. And most analysts are predicting that it'll be the same case with PS3.

Microsoft took the risk and sold consoles at a loss, and while they didn't turn much of a profit, they did, in just ONE generation, pull ahead of almighty Nintendo in the States. And now they have more leverage this time around and will most definitely turn a profit.

Seriously, whoever said Nintendo was reactive and not proactive was dead on. Nintendo is so worried about making a huge profit on everything they do that they end up screwing over their fans by not doing anything until it's proven to make them money, which always results in the jumping on the wagon a little too late.

XBox360 are too expensive and too hot. Something had to be done. However, I'd agree with Nintendo's stance if they hadn't compromized SO MUCH. There's a difference between being conservative and just being greedy.

Budget PC video cards can outperform the Wii by a wide margin at resoutions comparable to 720p. It's hard to find a card on the market that doesn't have at least 64MB of on-board memory. Why settle for Gamecube graphics? Why "port" their flagship title Zelda to the Wii without taking advantage of the hardware? Because they are greedy.

"But they agreed with us that graphics wouldn't matter if the games weren't fun to play."

Yeah, because it's obviously impossible to make a game that has both. It's funny how people constantly applaude Gamecube for its awesome graphics, but the instant the Wii is introduced, well, graphics don't matter, and we can just watch Lego characters bobble back and forth.

Of course, graphics isn't the only problem with the Wii. Most people are not interface designers, either. Look at how many people bought that piece of crap called the Eye Toy.

Nintendo have not always been behind in the graphics race!!! What about the Nintendo 64? That was the most powerful console for its time!!