Ed

Prices, adjusted for inflation, of the consoles (in the US, in USD, best selling model) at launch:


$239 GCN
$255 Wii
$348 Xbox
$358 PS2
$421 X360
$612 PS3

A few things explain the positions: The PS2 sold so quickly because it had enormous brand presence from the playstation, and because it was first to market. The GCN sold poorly because it was a poor offering in the face of the PS2 and to a lesser extent the xbox.

In other words, two things matter most: price and timing.

I think if the 360 sees a significant ($100) price drop, and the ps3 sees an even more significant ($200) price drop, both will become much more competitive.

The real question is: do the games you've purchased from XBLA work (in their full versions) when you aren't logged into the console?

e.g., you and your wife each have your own gamertags, and you purchased Lumines Live with your gamertag. See if she can play it when you aren't logged in.

As I've said twice in this thread already, I'm trolling the fanboys. I am not surprised I'm getting a negative response. I am delighted I'm getting a negative response.

I'm having a lot of fun :)

Of course it's an opinion. It is impossible for "X sucks" to be a statement of fact.

I assumed that was obvious to even the most mentally challenged of fanboys.

We didn't care because we didn't know any better, just like no one cared before the 1950s that there weren't any computers.

We know better, we have the capability, why not use it?

Anyway, I've played about 50 DS games and about 40 PSP games, and a few PSX games on the PSP.


I think the DS->PSX comparison is apt, although I think the PSX had a slight advantage over the DS. Both still suck, though, and seeing a PSX game on the PSP reminds you how far things have come.

And finally, using metacritic scores to say "people who don't like X are in the small minority" is silly. All it says is that "reviews critical of X that metacritic tracks are in a small minority".

It doesn't say anything about the popularity of the game as a whole. That's what the attach rate and resale rate tell you. Of course, the problem with the attach rate is that a lot of people were forced into bundles, so you don't know whether a purchase is an actual endorsement of the franchise.

In short, you won't know how popular Zelda is until you do a random phone poll and ask people "Do you like Nintendo's Zelda games?" and have 88% say "What? What's Zelda? Is that like Mario?"

Anyway. Zelda still sucks.

I'd like to note that I wasn't trying to convince anyone that Zelda sucked. I was merely stating that Zelda sucks. I have no desire to convert a fanboy.

However, I will say that it's silly to say "graphics don't matter". They don't matter as long as they don't *detract* from the overall experience. In many cases, though, they do. I'll be having fun playing Wii sports and I'll notice how truly, unbelievably awful the graphics are. It's Wii Sports, with like, 2000 polys on the screen, and they can't antialias? Give me a break.

Same goes for any of the 3d games on the DS. The graphics just suck too hard for the game to be playable. It distracts me, I stop being engrossed in the game, and it ruins it.

What people are asking for are "good enough" graphics, and Nintendo's consoles routinely fail to deliver even that.

I agree that my arguments are barely coherent, but at least I haven't made very many spelling mistakes.

You're confusing trolling with stupidity.

Plus, I don't like Zelda.

I like tons of video games. I'm currently playing godfather, warioware: smooth moves, warioware: touched, new super mario brothers, trauma center, elite beat agents, and loco roco.

I just think Zelda sucks.

Ken: Kangaroo Jack grossed $88 million. Enough said.